From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E53BE1393DD for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2014 12:30:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D7967E092F; Sun, 29 Jun 2014 12:30:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yk0-f173.google.com (mail-yk0-f173.google.com [209.85.160.173]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2456E0885 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2014 12:30:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yk0-f173.google.com with SMTP id 142so3977887ykq.4 for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2014 05:30:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=heKXlJLUO4ZHYn/bFp6H8MmqjYFY0GDsWPuyFZMQ61o=; b=mrwCeKYdUtQNLFeYIUK6CxqTOJZApLuDrE2KEg4VOzgIPpXLOCPWUJ0ggBvxcCgTfk u+DOZLzpejyZjU2AGEhUGzsTV4P4g6Xwtx7x+GRnHHTYtE2lHjnUQgTYUJatk77pSwb7 CiBzejZv5hv81ZSdwesIIgk0A6Z6Tgw1yjVIGb4JqP6csZrnt/d2vUX7Sgt/HNJ8sn82 +J0i3PWiNwTwT69y4Nqn6waVLXpiWIMbaGgf43Yrip2FKT+tc7pyI9a5Q3odlGA+6RJz Yx4kP131BE2TvoFoIWhlw+CHd6Ma1thPvSTpbkBjUu7nGSTY9iaNc93ijvjMtvLKylVA mQ+g== X-Received: by 10.236.83.65 with SMTP id p41mr3098761yhe.78.1404045011177; Sun, 29 Jun 2014 05:30:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.5] (adsl-65-0-95-206.jan.bellsouth.net. [65.0.95.206]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id c29sm15131311yhb.7.2014.06.29.05.30.10 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 29 Jun 2014 05:30:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <53B006D1.6030607@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2014 07:30:09 -0500 From: Dale User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:28.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/28.0 SeaMonkey/2.25 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] smartctrl drive error @60% References: <53AA050F.4070907@gmail.com> <53AF879A.1040904@gmail.com> <53AF99B6.7070809@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 4376d6f5-8237-4de5-83ff-6fe7c93d97d0 X-Archives-Hash: 061b4dbe4131d34f536d4e5bbeb55ad7 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Dale wrote: >> What if I copied data to the drive until it was just about full. I'm >> thinking like maybe 90 or 95% or so. If I do that and run the test >> every few days, would it then catch a error after a few weeks or so of >> testing? I realize no one knows with 100% certainty... > As you already said, nobody knows with 100% certainty. > > In the failures I've experienced I'd expect it to start catching > errors within a few days. However, on those drives the relocated > sector count never increases, which suggests that the firmware never > relocated those sectors when overwritten, which seems brain-dead to > me. > > If the drive relocates the sectors, then conceivably it could go quite > a long time until having errors, probably in an entirely different set > of sectors. > > Even if it doesn't relocate, the reliability of the bad sectors could > be high or low. > > Rich > > Yep. I guess the best thing to do is test the stuffin out of it and hope the tests don't wear it out. lol As I told my ex more than once, time tells. Dale :-) :-)