Seagate SMART, Raw Read Error Rate, Seek Error Rate - Storage

This is a discussion on Seagate SMART, Raw Read Error Rate, Seek Error Rate - Storage ; I'm trying to make sense of the SMART reports for my 13GB and 120GB Seagate hard drives. Both have very high numbers for the Raw Read Error Rate and Seek Error Rate. At the moment the Raw Read Error Rate ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 34

Thread: Seagate SMART, Raw Read Error Rate, Seek Error Rate

  1. Seagate SMART, Raw Read Error Rate, Seek Error Rate

    I'm trying to make sense of the SMART reports for my 13GB and 120GB
    Seagate hard drives. Both have very high numbers for the Raw Read
    Error Rate and Seek Error Rate. At the moment the Raw Read Error Rate
    for the 13GB seems to be unchanging, but the Seek Error Rate increases
    every time I look at it. Also, if I compare today's Raw Read Error
    Rate with the result from two years ago, the number is actually much
    lower today. Does anyone know how these figures are calculated, or
    even if they mean what they appear to mean?

    These are recent reports produced by SmartUDM:
    http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/13GB.RPT
    http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/120GB.RPT

    These reports were produced by Everest:
    http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/SMART_05.txt (2005)
    http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/SMART_07.txt (2007)
    http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/Sma...T_scandisk.txt

    The first report was done in Sept 2005, the second in the last couple
    of days. The last report is the result after running Scandisk.

    BTW, the Current Pending Sector Count of 1 reflects a sector that has
    been marked as bad by the OS. I suspect that the drive's controller is
    aware that it is bad, but it cannot relocate it until such time as the
    OS writes to it, thereby signalling that the data in that sector is no
    longer of any consequence.

    FWIW, SeaTools Desktop v3.00 says the 13GB drive is OK, apart from one
    bad sector.

    - Franc Zabkar
    --
    Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

  2. Re: Seagate SMART, Raw Read Error Rate, Seek Error Rate

    Previously Franc Zabkar wrote:
    > I'm trying to make sense of the SMART reports for my 13GB and 120GB
    > Seagate hard drives. Both have very high numbers for the Raw Read
    > Error Rate and Seek Error Rate.


    Raw read error is very hard to interpret and usually not
    important anyways. Seek errors are usually a poer problem
    or a vibration problem. They may also indicate a problem
    with the disk.

    > At the moment the Raw Read Error Rate
    > for the 13GB seems to be unchanging, but the Seek Error Rate increases
    > every time I look at it. Also, if I compare today's Raw Read Error
    > Rate with the result from two years ago, the number is actually much
    > lower today. Does anyone know how these figures are calculated, or
    > even if they mean what they appear to mean?


    > These are recent reports produced by SmartUDM:
    > http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/13GB.RPT
    > http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/120GB.RPT


    > These reports were produced by Everest:
    > http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/SMART_05.txt (2005)
    > http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/SMART_07.txt (2007)
    > http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/Sma...T_scandisk.txt


    > The first report was done in Sept 2005, the second in the last couple
    > of days. The last report is the result after running Scandisk.


    > BTW, the Current Pending Sector Count of 1 reflects a sector that has
    > been marked as bad by the OS.


    Not quite. It represents a sector that the drive has given up on, but
    not yet been able to replace, because it was not written to it.
    The OS does not factor into this.

    A bad sector marked by the disk (and invisible to the OS) can
    be counter as "reallocation event" or "reallocated sector
    count". If these numbers start growing, something is seriously
    wrong.

    > I suspect that the drive's controller is
    > aware that it is bad, but it cannot relocate it until such time as the
    > OS writes to it, thereby signalling that the data in that sector is no
    > longer of any consequence.


    Yes.

    > FWIW, SeaTools Desktop v3.00 says the 13GB drive is OK, apart from one
    > bad sector.


    One bad sector is no reason for concern. If they start to get more,
    that would be.

    Arno

  3. Re: Seagate SMART, Raw Read Error Rate, Seek Error Rate

    On 1 Sep 2007 07:29:59 GMT, Arno Wagner put finger to
    keyboard and composed:

    >Previously Franc Zabkar wrote:
    >> I'm trying to make sense of the SMART reports for my 13GB and 120GB
    >> Seagate hard drives. Both have very high numbers for the Raw Read
    >> Error Rate and Seek Error Rate.

    >
    >Raw read error is very hard to interpret and usually not
    >important anyways. Seek errors are usually a poer problem
    >or a vibration problem. They may also indicate a problem
    >with the disk.
    >
    >> At the moment the Raw Read Error Rate
    >> for the 13GB seems to be unchanging, but the Seek Error Rate increases
    >> every time I look at it. Also, if I compare today's Raw Read Error
    >> Rate with the result from two years ago, the number is actually much
    >> lower today. Does anyone know how these figures are calculated, or
    >> even if they mean what they appear to mean?

    >
    >> These are recent reports produced by SmartUDM:
    >> http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/13GB.RPT
    >> http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/120GB.RPT

    >
    >> These reports were produced by Everest:
    >> http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/SMART_05.txt (2005)
    >> http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/SMART_07.txt (2007)
    >> http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/Sma...T_scandisk.txt

    >
    >> The first report was done in Sept 2005, the second in the last couple
    >> of days. The last report is the result after running Scandisk.

    >
    >> BTW, the Current Pending Sector Count of 1 reflects a sector that has
    >> been marked as bad by the OS.

    >
    >Not quite. It represents a sector that the drive has given up on, but
    >not yet been able to replace, because it was not written to it.
    >The OS does not factor into this.


    Sorry, my statement was ambiguous. Maybe I should have written that
    "the Current Pending Sector Count of 1 coincides with a sector that
    has been marked as bad by the OS".

    >A bad sector marked by the disk (and invisible to the OS) can
    >be counter as "reallocation event" or "reallocated sector
    >count". If these numbers start growing, something is seriously
    >wrong.


    The numbers *are* growing. In fact they've grown from 34 to 119 in two
    years. I've been preparing to replace the drive for quite some time
    now. However, it's only in the last month or so that the drive has
    been making occasional noises, ie a very soft clink, probably from the
    voice coil positioner.

    >> I suspect that the drive's controller is
    >> aware that it is bad, but it cannot relocate it until such time as the
    >> OS writes to it, thereby signalling that the data in that sector is no
    >> longer of any consequence.

    >
    >Yes.
    >
    >> FWIW, SeaTools Desktop v3.00 says the 13GB drive is OK, apart from one
    >> bad sector.

    >
    >One bad sector is no reason for concern. If they start to get more,
    >that would be.
    >
    >Arno


    I now have a batch file that runs just prior to shutdown. Among other
    things, it captures SMART data and appends it to a log file. It'll be
    interesting to monitor the drive as it progresses toward total
    failure. :-)

    BTW, these are the SMART data for my Fujitsu 6GB drive:
    http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/6GB.RPT

    Notice the raw value for "Power On Hours Count".

    0000008EF98Ah = 9369994 dec
    = 1069 years

    In fact the figure appears to represent Power On Seconds.

    - Franc Zabkar
    --
    Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

  4. Re: Seagate SMART, Raw Read Error Rate, Seek Error Rate

    Previously Franc Zabkar wrote:
    > On 1 Sep 2007 07:29:59 GMT, Arno Wagner put finger to
    > keyboard and composed:


    >>Previously Franc Zabkar wrote:

    [...]
    >>> BTW, the Current Pending Sector Count of 1 reflects a sector that has
    >>> been marked as bad by the OS.

    >>
    >>Not quite. It represents a sector that the drive has given up on, but
    >>not yet been able to replace, because it was not written to it.
    >>The OS does not factor into this.


    > Sorry, my statement was ambiguous. Maybe I should have written that
    > "the Current Pending Sector Count of 1 coincides with a sector that
    > has been marked as bad by the OS".


    Ok.

    >>A bad sector marked by the disk (and invisible to the OS) can
    >>be counter as "reallocation event" or "reallocated sector
    >>count". If these numbers start growing, something is seriously
    >>wrong.


    > The numbers *are* growing. In fact they've grown from 34 to 119 in two
    > years. I've been preparing to replace the drive for quite some time
    > now. However, it's only in the last month or so that the drive has
    > been making occasional noises, ie a very soft clink, probably from the
    > voice coil positioner.


    Well. Personally I stop trustinf a disk around 10 or so, unless
    they all happened in one burst. I have had one Maxtor disk with
    something like 200 reallocated sectors in one event, which
    did run fine without any additional ones for three years afterwards.

    So, it could be a problem with power (spikes, I would suspect),
    mechanical shock/vibration or the like. Or the disk could have
    a problem. I would replace that one. Also, at some time the disk will
    run out of spare sectors.

    >>> I suspect that the drive's controller is
    >>> aware that it is bad, but it cannot relocate it until such time as the
    >>> OS writes to it, thereby signalling that the data in that sector is no
    >>> longer of any consequence.

    >>
    >>Yes.
    >>
    >>> FWIW, SeaTools Desktop v3.00 says the 13GB drive is OK, apart from one
    >>> bad sector.

    >>
    >>One bad sector is no reason for concern. If they start to get more,
    >>that would be.
    >>
    >>Arno


    > I now have a batch file that runs just prior to shutdown. Among other
    > things, it captures SMART data and appends it to a log file. It'll be
    > interesting to monitor the drive as it progresses toward total
    > failure. :-)


    > BTW, these are the SMART data for my Fujitsu 6GB drive:
    > http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/6GB.RPT


    > Notice the raw value for "Power On Hours Count".


    > 0000008EF98Ah = 9369994 dec
    > = 1069 years


    > In fact the figure appears to represent Power On Seconds.


    This is a non-standardized field, AFAIK. Bogus readings are
    no surprise here.

    Arno

  5. Re: Seagate SMART, Raw Read Error Rate, Seek Error Rate

    On 2 Sep 2007 05:29:04 GMT, Arno Wagner put finger to
    keyboard and composed:

    >Previously Franc Zabkar wrote:


    >> BTW, these are the SMART data for my Fujitsu 6GB drive:
    >> http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/6GB.RPT

    >
    >> Notice the raw value for "Power On Hours Count".

    >
    >> 0000008EF98Ah = 9369994 dec
    >> = 1069 years

    >
    >> In fact the figure appears to represent Power On Seconds.

    >
    >This is a non-standardized field, AFAIK. Bogus readings are
    >no surprise here.
    >
    >Arno


    I suspect that the figures aren't necessarily bogus, they may just
    need to be interpreted differently between manufacturers. That said, I
    haven't been able to find any detailed SMART documentation at any of
    the manufacturers' web sites.

    - Franc Zabkar
    --
    Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

  6. Re: Seagate SMART, Raw Read Error Rate, Seek Error Rate

    On 1 Sep 2007 07:29:59 GMT, Arno Wagner put finger to
    keyboard and composed:

    >Previously Franc Zabkar wrote:
    >> I'm trying to make sense of the SMART reports for my 13GB and 120GB
    >> Seagate hard drives. Both have very high numbers for the Raw Read
    >> Error Rate and Seek Error Rate.

    >
    >Raw read error is very hard to interpret and usually not
    >important anyways. Seek errors are usually a poer problem
    >or a vibration problem. They may also indicate a problem
    >with the disk.


    I'm running Win98SE. While monitoring file accesses with Filemon (from
    SysInternals), I used Everest Home Edition (ver 2.20.405) to monitor
    the drive's SMART data. Every time I refreshed the SMART report (using
    F5), the Seek Error Rate figure increased by 10 points. However the
    Filemon capture window remained empty. How can a drive incur seek
    errors if there are no file accesses? I would think that the SMART
    data would be retrieved from the drive's RAM or flash EEPROM, so no
    actual seeks would be required.

    - Franc Zabkar
    --
    Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

  7. Re: Seagate SMART, Raw Read Error Rate, Seek Error Rate

    "Franc Zabkar" wrote in message
    news:b3mkd3t5rsfskeujhqmej21cu4igqs5lhm@4ax.com...
    >
    > I'm running Win98SE. While monitoring file accesses with Filemon (from
    > SysInternals), I used Everest Home Edition (ver 2.20.405) to monitor
    > the drive's SMART data. Every time I refreshed the SMART report (using
    > F5), the Seek Error Rate figure increased by 10 points. However the
    > Filemon capture window remained empty. How can a drive incur seek
    > errors if there are no file accesses? I would think that the SMART
    > data would be retrieved from the drive's RAM or flash EEPROM, so no
    > actual seeks would be required.
    >

    SMART diagnostic I/O does not show up as Windows I/O.


  8. Re: Seagate SMART, Raw Read Error Rate, Seek Error Rate

    Previously Franc Zabkar wrote:
    > On 2 Sep 2007 05:29:04 GMT, Arno Wagner put finger to
    > keyboard and composed:


    >>Previously Franc Zabkar wrote:


    >>> BTW, these are the SMART data for my Fujitsu 6GB drive:
    >>> http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/6GB.RPT

    >>
    >>> Notice the raw value for "Power On Hours Count".

    >>
    >>> 0000008EF98Ah = 9369994 dec
    >>> = 1069 years

    >>
    >>> In fact the figure appears to represent Power On Seconds.

    >>
    >>This is a non-standardized field, AFAIK. Bogus readings are
    >>no surprise here.
    >>
    >>Arno


    > I suspect that the figures aren't necessarily bogus, they may just
    > need to be interpreted differently between manufacturers.


    That is what I meant. The raw values ace accurate, but the interpreted
    figures are ofteh wrong.

    > That said, I
    > haven't been able to find any detailed SMART documentation at any of
    > the manufacturers' web sites.


    SMART is part of the ATA spec. You can find specs on the t13 comitte
    website here: http://www.t13.org/

    Arno

  9. Re: Seagate SMART, Raw Read Error Rate, Seek Error Rate

    Arno Wagner wrote:
    > Previously Franc Zabkar <...> wrote:
    >> On 2 Sep 2007 05:29:04 GMT, Arno Wagner put finger to
    >> keyboard and composed:

    >
    >>> Previously Franc Zabkar <...> wrote:

    >
    >>>> BTW, these are the SMART data for my Fujitsu 6GB drive:
    >>>> http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/6GB.RPT
    >>>> Notice the raw value for "Power On Hours Count".
    >>>> 0000008EF98Ah = 9369994 dec
    >>>> = 1069 years
    >>>> In fact the figure appears to represent Power On Seconds.


    Yes, the FUJITSU MPE3064AT Attribute 9 raw value counts seconds.
    Other drives use hours, minutes or half minutes.
    Some SMART tools handle these differences, most don't.
    See info about Attribute 9 in http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net/#FAQ


    >>> This is a non-standardized field, AFAIK. Bogus readings are
    >>> no surprise here.
    >>>
    >>> Arno

    >
    >> I suspect that the figures aren't necessarily bogus, they may just
    >> need to be interpreted differently between manufacturers.

    >
    > That is what I meant. The raw values ace accurate, but the interpreted
    > figures are ofteh wrong.
    >
    >> That said, I
    >> haven't been able to find any detailed SMART documentation at any of
    >> the manufacturers' web sites.

    >
    > SMART is part of the ATA spec. You can find specs on the t13 comitte
    > website here: http://www.t13.org/
    >


    Unlike SMART status, self-tests and logs, SMART attributes are *not*
    standardized in ATA-3...8. Even the general data format isn't standardized.

    Specific Attributes are only listed in a proposed informal annex for
    ATA-8. But it is still not included in the draft.

    See "ATA References" at http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net/#references
    for links & comments.

    Christian

  10. Re: Seagate SMART, Raw Read Error Rate, Seek Error Rate

    Franc Zabkar wrote in message news:b3mkd3t5rsfskeujhqmej21cu4igqs5lhm@4ax.com
    > On 1 Sep 2007 07:29:59 GMT, Arno Wagner put finger to
    > keyboard and composed:
    >
    > > Previously Franc Zabkar wrote:
    > > > I'm trying to make sense of the SMART reports for my 13GB and 120GB
    > > > Seagate hard drives. Both have very high numbers for the Raw Read
    > > > Error Rate and Seek Error Rate.

    > >
    > > Raw read error is very hard to interpret and usually not
    > > important anyways. Seek errors are usually a poer problem
    > > or a vibration problem. They may also indicate a problem
    > > with the disk.


    > I'm running Win98SE. While monitoring file accesses with Filemon (from
    > SysInternals), I used Everest Home Edition (ver 2.20.405) to monitor
    > the drive's SMART data. Every time I refreshed the SMART report (using
    > F5), the Seek Error Rate figure increased by 10 points. However the
    > Filemon capture window remained empty. How can a drive incur seek
    > errors if there are no file accesses?


    What file access.

    > I would think that the SMART data would be retrieved from the
    > drive's RAM or flash EEPROM, so no actual seeks would be required.


    Well, guess what.

    >
    > - Franc Zabkar


  11. Re: Seagate SMART, Raw Read Error Rate, Seek Error Rate

    Franc Zabkar wrote in message news:d6kkd3hkcvi6glfp9bghe5k0bdudciqhld@4ax.com
    > On 2 Sep 2007 05:29:04 GMT, Arno Wagner put finger to
    > keyboard and composed:
    >
    > > Previously Franc Zabkar wrote:

    >
    > > > BTW, these are the SMART data for my Fujitsu 6GB drive:
    > > > http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/6GB.RPT

    > >
    > > > Notice the raw value for "Power On Hours Count".

    > >
    > > > 0000008EF98Ah = 9369994 dec
    > > > = 1069 years

    > >
    > > > In fact the figure appears to represent Power On Seconds.


    > > This is a non-standardized field, AFAIK.


    They all are, you babblebot moron.

    > Bogus readings are no surprise here.


    As is your babbling, babblebot.

    > >
    > > Arno


    > I suspect that the figures aren't necessarily bogus,


    It's the babblebot, it just babbles.

    > they may just need to be interpreted differently between manufacturers.


    Which is what 'Vendor specific' means.

    > That said, I haven't been able to find any detailed SMART
    > documentation at any of the manufacturers' web sites.
    >
    > - Franc Zabkar


  12. Re: Seagate SMART, Raw Read Error Rate, Seek Error Rate

    Franc Zabkar wrote in message newseqjd395h03laql0g2m7jcid0n76gdqqdt@4ax.com
    > On 1 Sep 2007 07:29:59 GMT, Arno Wagner put finger to
    > keyboard and composed:
    >
    > > Previously Franc Zabkar wrote:
    > > > I'm trying to make sense of the SMART reports for my 13GB and 120GB
    > > > Seagate hard drives. Both have very high numbers for the Raw Read
    > > > Error Rate and Seek Error Rate.

    > >
    > > Raw read error is very hard to interpret and usually not important any
    > > ways. Seek errors are usually a poer problem or a vibration problem.
    > > They may also indicate a problem with the disk.
    > >
    > > > At the moment the Raw Read Error Rate
    > > > for the 13GB seems to be unchanging, but the Seek Error Rate increases
    > > > every time I look at it. Also, if I compare today's Raw Read Error
    > > > Rate with the result from two years ago, the number is actually much
    > > > lower today. Does anyone know how these figures are calculated, or
    > > > even if they mean what they appear to mean?

    > >
    > > > These are recent reports produced by SmartUDM:
    > > > http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/13GB.RPT
    > > > http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/120GB.RPT

    > >
    > > > These reports were produced by Everest:
    > > > http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/SMART_05.txt (2005)
    > > > http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/SMART_07.txt (2007)
    > > > http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/Sma...T_scandisk.txt

    > >
    > > > The first report was done in Sept 2005, the second in the last couple
    > > > of days. The last report is the result after running Scandisk.

    > >
    > > > BTW, the Current Pending Sector Count of 1 reflects a sector that has
    > > > been marked as bad by the OS.

    > >
    > > Not quite. It represents a sector that the drive has given up on,
    > > but not yet been able to replace, because it was not written to it.
    > > The OS does not factor into this.


    > Sorry, my statement was ambiguous.


    No it wasn't. Everybody else but the babblebot got it.

    > Maybe I should have written that "the Current Pending Sector Count
    > of 1 coincides with a sector that has been marked as bad by the OS".


    Which would have gotten the same response from the babblebot.

    >
    > > A bad sector marked by the disk (and invisible to the OS) can
    > > be counter as "reallocation event" or "reallocated sector count".
    > > If these numbers start growing, something is seriously wrong.

    >
    > The numbers *are* growing. In fact they've grown from 34 to 119 in
    > two years. I've been preparing to replace the drive for quite some
    > time now. However, it's only in the last month or so that the drive has
    > been making occasional noises, ie a very soft clink, probably from the
    > voice coil positioner.
    >
    > > > I suspect that the drive's controller is aware that it is bad, but it
    > > > cannot relocate it until such time as the OS writes to it, thereby sig-
    > > > nalling that the data in that sector is no longer of any consequence.

    > >
    > > Yes.
    > >
    > > > FWIW, SeaTools Desktop v3.00 says the 13GB drive is OK, apart
    > > > from one bad sector.


    > > One bad sector is no reason for concern.
    > > If they start to get more, that would be.


    Utter nonsense as always from the babblebot.

    > >
    > > Arno

    >
    > I now have a batch file that runs just prior to shutdown. Among other
    > things, it captures SMART data and appends it to a log file. It'll be
    > interesting to monitor the drive as it progresses toward total failure. :-)
    >
    > BTW, these are the SMART data for my Fujitsu 6GB drive:
    > http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/6GB.RPT
    >
    > Notice the raw value for "Power On Hours Count".
    >
    > 0000008EF98Ah = 9369994 dec
    > = 1069 years
    >
    > In fact the figure appears to represent Power On Seconds.
    >
    > - Franc Zabkar


  13. Re: Seagate SMART, Raw Read Error Rate, Seek Error Rate

    Arno Wagner wrote in message news:5jv010F1bpmbU1@mid.individual.net
    > Previously Franc Zabkar wrote:
    > > On 1 Sep 2007 07:29:59 GMT, Arno Wagner put finger to
    > > keyboard and composed:

    >
    > > > Previously Franc Zabkar wrote:

    > [...]
    > > > > BTW, the Current Pending Sector Count of 1 reflects a sector that has
    > > > > been marked as bad by the OS.
    > > >
    > > > Not quite. It represents a sector that the drive has given up on, but
    > > > not yet been able to replace, because it was not written to it.
    > > > The OS does not factor into this.

    >
    > > Sorry, my statement was ambiguous. Maybe I should have written that
    > > "the Current Pending Sector Count of 1 coincides with a sector that
    > > has been marked as bad by the OS".

    >
    > Ok.
    >
    > > > A bad sector marked by the disk (and invisible to the OS) can
    > > > be counter as "reallocation event" or "reallocated sector
    > > > count". If these numbers start growing, something is seriously
    > > > wrong.

    >
    > > The numbers *are* growing. In fact they've grown from 34 to 119 in two
    > > years. I've been preparing to replace the drive for quite some time now.
    > > However, it's only in the last month or so that the drive has been making
    > > occasional noises, ie a very soft clink, probably from the voice coil posi-
    > > tioner.


    > Well. Personally I stop trustinf a disk around
    > 10 or so, unless they all happened in one burst.


    Which makes perfect sense if you are babblebot.

    > I have had one Maxtor disk with something like 200 reallocated sectors in
    > one event, which did run fine without any additional ones for three years
    > afterwards.


    Which obviously you only know by waiting for 3 years.

    >
    > So, it could be a problem with power (spikes, I would suspect), mecha-
    > nical shock/vibration or the like. Or the disk could have a problem.


    > I would replace that one.


    And subject the new disk to the same problem causes. Very good, babblebot.

    > Also, at some time the disk will run out of spare sectors.


    At this rate somewhere in the next century which is very bad, eh babblebot.

    >
    > > > > I suspect that the drive's controller is
    > > > > aware that it is bad, but it cannot relocate it until such time as the
    > > > > OS writes to it, thereby signalling that the data in that sector is no
    > > > > longer of any consequence.
    > > >
    > > > Yes.
    > > >
    > > > > FWIW, SeaTools Desktop v3.00 says the 13GB drive is OK, apart from one
    > > > > bad sector.
    > > >
    > > > One bad sector is no reason for concern. If they start to get more,
    > > > that would be.
    > > >
    > > > Arno

    >
    > > I now have a batch file that runs just prior to shutdown. Among other
    > > things, it captures SMART data and appends it to a log file. It'll be in-
    > > teresting to monitor the drive as it progresses toward total failure. :-)

    >
    > > BTW, these are the SMART data for my Fujitsu 6GB drive:
    > > http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/6GB.RPT

    >
    > > Notice the raw value for "Power On Hours Count".

    >
    > > 0000008EF98Ah = 9369994 dec
    > > = 1069 years

    >
    > > In fact the figure appears to represent Power On Seconds.


    > This is a non-standardized field, AFAIK.


    Little you know. They all are, babblebot.

    > Bogus readings are no surprise here.


    As is your response.

    >
    > Arno


  14. Re: Seagate SMART, Raw Read Error Rate, Seek Error Rate

    Arno Wagner wrote in news:5k06tjF1h73nU3@mid.individual.net
    > Previously Franc Zabkar wrote:
    > > On 2 Sep 2007 05:29:04 GMT, Arno Wagner put finger to
    > > keyboard and composed:

    >
    > > > Previously Franc Zabkar wrote:

    >
    > > > > BTW, these are the SMART data for my Fujitsu 6GB drive:
    > > > > http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/6GB.RPT
    > > >
    > > > > Notice the raw value for "Power On Hours Count".
    > > >
    > > > > 0000008EF98Ah = 9369994 dec
    > > > > = 1069 years
    > > >
    > > > > In fact the figure appears to represent Power On Seconds.
    > > >
    > > > This is a non-standardized field, AFAIK. Bogus readings are
    > > > no surprise here.
    > > >
    > > > Arno

    >
    > > I suspect that the figures aren't necessarily bogus, they may just
    > > need to be interpreted differently between manufacturers.

    >
    > That is what I meant. The raw values ace accurate, but the interpreted
    > figures are ofteh wrong.
    >
    > > That said, I haven't been able to find any detailed SMART
    > > documentation at any of the manufacturers' web sites.

    >
    > SMART is part of the ATA spec. You can find specs on the t13 comitte
    > website here: http://www.t13.org/


    Which obviously you didn't bother to consult.

    >
    > Arno


  15. Re: Seagate SMART, Raw Read Error Rate, Seek Error Rate

    On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 09:11:58 -0700, "Eric Gisin"
    put finger to keyboard and composed:

    >"Franc Zabkar" wrote in message
    >news:b3mkd3t5rsfskeujhqmej21cu4igqs5lhm@4ax.com...
    >>
    >> I'm running Win98SE. While monitoring file accesses with Filemon (from
    >> SysInternals), I used Everest Home Edition (ver 2.20.405) to monitor
    >> the drive's SMART data. Every time I refreshed the SMART report (using
    >> F5), the Seek Error Rate figure increased by 10 points. However the
    >> Filemon capture window remained empty. How can a drive incur seek
    >> errors if there are no file accesses? I would think that the SMART
    >> data would be retrieved from the drive's RAM or flash EEPROM, so no
    >> actual seeks would be required.
    >>

    >SMART diagnostic I/O does not show up as Windows I/O.


    Understood, and that's essentially what I wrote. I merely used Filemon
    to confirm that Everest wasn't doing something else as well. So the
    question remains, why does SMART diagnostic I/O cause the Seek Error
    Rate figure to change?

    - Franc Zabkar
    --
    Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

  16. Re: Seagate SMART, Raw Read Error Rate, Seek Error Rate

    Franc Zabkar wrote in news:vd7md35mfhvt4p0qf73ah37k8tv853h8q2@4ax.com
    > On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 09:11:58 -0700, "Eric Gisin" gisin@uniserve.com put finger to keyboard and composed:
    > > "Franc Zabkar" fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message news:b3mkd3t5rsfskeujhqmej21cu4igqs5lhm@4ax.com...
    > > >
    > > > I'm running Win98SE. While monitoring file accesses with Filemon (from
    > > > SysInternals), I used Everest Home Edition (ver 2.20.405) to monitor
    > > > the drive's SMART data. Every time I refreshed the SMART report (using
    > > > F5), the Seek Error Rate figure increased by 10 points. However the
    > > > Filemon capture window remained empty. How can a drive incur seek
    > > > errors if there are no file accesses? I would think that the SMART
    > > > data would be retrieved from the drive's RAM or flash EEPROM, so no
    > > > actual seeks would be required.
    > > >

    > > SMART diagnostic I/O does not show up as Windows I/O.


    > Understood,


    No, not really.

    > and that's essentially what I wrote.


    No, you didn't.

    > I merely used Filemon to confirm that Everest wasn't doing something
    > else as well.


    Like File IO maybe?

    > So the question remains, why does SMART diagnostic I/O cause the


    > Seek Error Rate figure to change?


    Maybe because it does "SMART diagnostic I/O" ?
    Just a calculated guess. What do you think.

    >
    > - Franc Zabkar


  17. Re: Seagate SMART, Raw Read Error Rate, Seek Error Rate

    On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 23:54:16 +0200, "Folkert Rienstra"
    put finger to keyboard and composed:

    >Franc Zabkar wrote in news:vd7md35mfhvt4p0qf73ah37k8tv853h8q2@4ax.com
    >> On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 09:11:58 -0700, "Eric Gisin" gisin@uniserve.com put finger to keyboard and composed:
    >> > "Franc Zabkar" fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message news:b3mkd3t5rsfskeujhqmej21cu4igqs5lhm@4ax.com...
    >> > >
    >> > > I'm running Win98SE. While monitoring file accesses with Filemon (from
    >> > > SysInternals), I used Everest Home Edition (ver 2.20.405) to monitor
    >> > > the drive's SMART data. Every time I refreshed the SMART report (using
    >> > > F5), the Seek Error Rate figure increased by 10 points. However the
    >> > > Filemon capture window remained empty. How can a drive incur seek
    >> > > errors if there are no file accesses? I would think that the SMART
    >> > > data would be retrieved from the drive's RAM or flash EEPROM, so no
    >> > > actual seeks would be required.
    >> > >
    >> > SMART diagnostic I/O does not show up as Windows I/O.

    >
    >> Understood,

    >
    >No, not really.
    >
    >> and that's essentially what I wrote.

    >
    >No, you didn't.
    >
    >> I merely used Filemon to confirm that Everest wasn't doing something
    >> else as well.

    >
    >Like File IO maybe?
    >
    >> So the question remains, why does SMART diagnostic I/O cause the

    >
    >> Seek Error Rate figure to change?

    >
    >Maybe because it does "SMART diagnostic I/O" ?
    >Just a calculated guess. What do you think.


    I think you are a putrefying dog turd that should go into my kill
    file.

    - Franc Zabkar
    --
    Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

  18. Re: Seagate SMART, Raw Read Error Rate, Seek Error Rate

    On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 19:15:49 +0200, Christian Franke
    put finger to keyboard and composed:

    >Arno Wagner wrote:
    >> Previously Franc Zabkar <...> wrote:


    >>> That said, I
    >>> haven't been able to find any detailed SMART documentation at any of
    >>> the manufacturers' web sites.

    >>
    >> SMART is part of the ATA spec. You can find specs on the t13 comitte
    >> website here: http://www.t13.org/
    >>

    >
    >Unlike SMART status, self-tests and logs, SMART attributes are *not*
    >standardized in ATA-3...8. Even the general data format isn't standardized.
    >
    >Specific Attributes are only listed in a proposed informal annex for
    >ATA-8. But it is still not included in the draft.
    >
    >See "ATA References" at http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net/#references
    >for links & comments.
    >
    >Christian


    Thanks for that. I'd been looking for SFF-8035 without success.

    BTW, Seagate's docs weren't very useful at all. :-(

    - Franc Zabkar
    --
    Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

  19. Re: Seagate SMART, Raw Read Error Rate, Seek Error Rate

    Previously Christian Franke wrote:
    > Arno Wagner wrote:
    >> Previously Franc Zabkar <...> wrote:
    >>> On 2 Sep 2007 05:29:04 GMT, Arno Wagner put finger to
    >>> keyboard and composed:

    >>
    >>>> Previously Franc Zabkar <...> wrote:

    >>
    >>>>> BTW, these are the SMART data for my Fujitsu 6GB drive:
    >>>>> http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/6GB.RPT
    >>>>> Notice the raw value for "Power On Hours Count".
    >>>>> 0000008EF98Ah = 9369994 dec
    >>>>> = 1069 years
    >>>>> In fact the figure appears to represent Power On Seconds.


    > Yes, the FUJITSU MPE3064AT Attribute 9 raw value counts seconds.
    > Other drives use hours, minutes or half minutes.
    > Some SMART tools handle these differences, most don't.
    > See info about Attribute 9 in http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net/#FAQ



    >>>> This is a non-standardized field, AFAIK. Bogus readings are
    >>>> no surprise here.
    >>>>
    >>>> Arno

    >>
    >>> I suspect that the figures aren't necessarily bogus, they may just
    >>> need to be interpreted differently between manufacturers.

    >>
    >> That is what I meant. The raw values ace accurate, but the interpreted
    >> figures are ofteh wrong.
    >>
    >>> That said, I
    >>> haven't been able to find any detailed SMART documentation at any of
    >>> the manufacturers' web sites.

    >>
    >> SMART is part of the ATA spec. You can find specs on the t13 comitte
    >> website here: http://www.t13.org/
    >>


    > Unlike SMART status, self-tests and logs, SMART attributes are *not*
    > standardized in ATA-3...8. Even the general data format isn't standardized.


    > Specific Attributes are only listed in a proposed informal annex for
    > ATA-8. But it is still not included in the draft.


    > See "ATA References" at http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net/#references
    > for links & comments.


    Aha. Interesting! That explains the mess some attributes are.

    Arno

  20. Re: Seagate SMART, Raw Read Error Rate, Seek Error Rate

    Franc Zabkar wrote:
    > ...
    >>> I'm running Win98SE. ...
    >>>

    >> SMART diagnostic I/O does not show up as Windows I/O.

    >
    > Understood, and that's essentially what I wrote. I merely used Filemon
    > to confirm that Everest wasn't doing something else as well. So the
    > question remains, why does SMART diagnostic I/O cause the Seek Error
    > Rate figure to change?
    >


    Any attribute may be updated during a "Auto Offline Data Collection".
    This is intended to update the SMART attributes marked "Offline".

    There is more detailed info in the smartctl man page.
    See the description of the "--offlineauto" option at:
    http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net...martctl.8.html
    (BTW: this tool works also on Win9x/ME if driver provides smartvsd.vxd)

    Christian

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast