If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
S.M.A.R.T. reports bad sectors, but badblocks no errors?
What should I make of a drive for which S.M.A.R.T. reports 8 bad sectors
(a single 4K block, I assume), but badblocks reports no errors on a read-write test? Perce |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
S.M.A.R.T. reports bad sectors, but badblocks no errors?
On 7/2/19 10:41 AM, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
What should I make of a drive for which S.M.A.R.T. reports 8 bad sectors (a single 4K block, I assume), but badblocks reports no errors on a read-write test? I think it depends on the drive is. I suspect that any drive that has S.M.A.R.T. also has spare sectors that aren't visible to the OS. As such, it's entirely possible that the 8 sectors are indeed bad and have been swapped out with spares that are good. Running a bad block check from the OS (outside of the drive & integrated controller) on such a will likely not see any problem(s). -- Grant. . . . unix || die |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
S.M.A.R.T. reports bad sectors, but badblocks no errors?
On 7/2/19 2:31 PM, Grant Taylor wrote:
What should I make of a drive for which S.M.A.R.T. reports 8 bad sectors (a single 4K block, I assume), but badblocks reports no errors on a read-write test? I think it depends on the drive is. I suspect that any drive that has S.M.A.R.T. also has spare sectors that aren't visible to the OS. As such, it's entirely possible that the 8 sectors are indeed bad and have been swapped out with spares that are good. Running a bad block check from the OS (outside of the drive & integrated controller) on such a will likely not see any problem(s). Now, after just one more run of badblocks, S.M.A.R.T. reports no errors. So I assume that now a spare block is in use. Perce |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
S.M.A.R.T. reports bad sectors, but badblocks no errors?
On 7/2/19 2:49 PM, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
Now, after just one more run of badblocks, S.M.A.R.T. reports no errors. So I assume that now a spare block is in use. So, the disk likely did have a problem. But I'm guessing it has worked around the problem. Now the question becomes is the problem stable and not going to grow? Or is the problem going to spread. Only time and monitoring will tell. -- Grant. . . . unix || die |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
S.M.A.R.T. reports bad sectors, but badblocks no errors?
On 7/2/19 5:44 PM, Grant Taylor wrote:
Now, after just one more run of badblocks, S.M.A.R.T. reports no errors. So I assume that now a spare block is in use. So, the disk likely did have a problem.Â* But I'm guessing it has worked around the problem. Now the question becomes is the problem stable and not going to grow? Or is the problem going to spread.Â* Only time and monitoring will tell. This is a brand-new Seagate drive, so do I return it for replacement, or assume that the problem is now solved (false alarm perhaps), or wait till it acts up again and get it replaced by Seagate by a "refurbished" (i.e., tested more thoroughly than a brand-new one) drive? BUT, since S.M.A.R.T. now reports no errors, why should either the vendor or Seagate replace it? Even if it craps out altogether, it's part of a RaidZ2 pool (two drives can fail without data loss), and I do have a spare with which I can replace it. Perce |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
S.M.A.R.T. reports bad sectors, but badblocks no errors?
On 7/2/19 4:17 PM, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
This is a brand-new Seagate drive, so do I return it for replacement, or assume that the problem is now solved (false alarm perhaps), or wait till it acts up again and get it replaced by Seagate by a "refurbished" (i.e., tested more thoroughly than a brand-new one) drive? Depending how convenient it is to exchange, I'd be inclined to feign ignorance and say it's not working and ask for a replacement. Especially if it's a moderately convenient brick and mortar store. An online acquisition would depend on their return policies, shipping, time frames, etc. BUT, since S.M.A.R.T. now reports no errors, why should either the vendor or Seagate replace it? Ya. Of course it does. That's going to make it even harder to get a replacement from Seagate. Even if it craps out altogether, it's part of a RaidZ2 pool (two drives can fail without data loss), and I do have a spare with which I can replace it. Depending on how annoying it will be to exchange, I'd likely go ahead and put it in the ZFS pool and deal with the drive in the future. I will say that I'd be inclined to run SpinRite on the drive before putting it into the pool. I'd probably crank it up to a level 4 or 5. The high level being a desire to exercise the crap out of the drive for fear that it's might have infant mortality. I'd rather it die before putting it into service than after. -- Grant. . . . unix || die |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Seagate drive check utility reports "errors in metadatea file records, other errors critical errors in metadata.." | [email protected] | Storage (alternative) | 0 | February 3rd 06 04:48 AM |
bad blocks found but SMART reports zero reallocated sectors | IronFelix | Storage (alternative) | 5 | January 28th 06 03:16 AM |
Memtest86 reports no error at the store, but reports errors here!! | Admin | General | 12 | September 13th 05 10:32 AM |
XFS and bad sectors/badblocks | scott | Storage (alternative) | 0 | February 28th 04 11:43 PM |
A7N8X Reports errors | Baxter | Asus Motherboards | 4 | June 29th 03 11:09 AM |