 Re: Seagate 7200.11 High Failure Rate
Tony wrote
> wrote
>> I bought a 2.5" 160GB for my laptop.
>> Had a problem. Ran Seatools, showed nothing, called Seagate.
>> They couldn't figure it out, said drive must have a problem.
>> Tried running Spinrite - it showed the drive making constant seek
>> errors. Got a replacement. this one is making lots - not constant -
>> seek errors. Seagate just blows it off and says we don't support
>> anything but Seatools and it doesn't tell what the seek errors are.
>> if it fails u have 5 years to replace it. I said - Ya, but that
>> translates into a slow drive - he couldn't understand that so I gave
>> up. SO seek errors are not important to Seagate.
>> THEREFORE, Seagate sucks. Don't know if others are better - the orig drive had NO seek errors and one ECC.
> I learned something this week about S.M.A.R.T.
No you didnt.
> As well-meaning as "the specification" may have been at it's conception, the way it is implemented today is highly
> proprietary to individual manufacturers.
Nope, only some bits of it are to some extent.
> It is very hard for other parties (read, software developers of hard drive monitoring software) to decipher the
> meaning of these values unless they figure it out some way on their own.
Wrong again.
> Drive manufactures HIDE their S.M.A.R.T. implementation details.
Not the stuff that matters they dont.
> I too listed "seek errors" as one of the things I noted on failing drives,
But didnt even notice that Seagates give the same result with drives that are fine.
> but I got that info from a software program that didn't come from the manufacturer. That program cannot assess the
> data across all drives
> because they don't have the S.M.A.R.T. value meanings worked out.
Wrong again.
> I tend to believe that the "reallocated sector count" is valid (just a hunch),
Taint anything like a hunch if you actually have a clue about what SMART is about.
> but think that "seek errors" probably isn't, because I can
> watch on of my drives accumulate seek errors as I watch the program, but the drive continues to run fine (for over a
> year).
So seek errors clearly dont mean what you assume they are.
> S.M.A.R.T. is a good start in theory only.
Wrong again.
> In practice, being proprietarily implemented by manufacturers, it sucks!
Wrong, as always.
> I have read that S.M.A.R.T. can detect or predict 70% of hard drive failures.
Just a number plucked out of some fool's arse. We can tell from the smell.
> But drive manufacturers don't want anyone analyzing the operation of
> their drives so they HIDE their implementation details of S.M.A.R.T.
Just another utterly mindless conspiracy theory.
They wouldnt label a particular field reallocated sectors if thats what they were trying to do.
> and what could be something of greater value becomes a source of confusion.
Only to those who dont have a clue. You qualify.
> The above posters concerns may very well be invalid then, but drive manufacturers are, IMO, schmucks for not divulging
> or for purposely obfuscating their S.M.A.R.T. implementations.
Just another utterly mindless conspiracy theory.
 |