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 0358713877A for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 11:11:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6E4EBE0E5E; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 11:11:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yk0-f175.google.com (mail-yk0-f175.google.com [209.85.160.175]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A281E0DE2 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 11:11:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yk0-f175.google.com with SMTP id q200so3947669ykb.20 for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 04:11:25 -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=Z09aHIB3PbpXC+ZCUpk5xT/hvtLZIvZ/RGaPbHZqX5w=; b=ZUI9ieK/YIcqSa8N5oc6uN9a/QrU6XHBe8bDoLqxQH+/u7jibTXhOnLSzrl/+ni2of sqDDj2vKDGsUnKMK56PYOBYrDc+eozGF20r5SsDOfJBMoY+T12l275zuV5neD81en699 bPBrNjvpd3/rbGYTh4u0SDJtd6HAlUrgEXJDK/LYc7blnDXW9ZdU+WS4U7gs4PtAJOir OGz4wLVBHXIXlkOnTvLO9KDpnD/2bGoQSnGH3jCLFWR0PriQAPIOW38KWvtrOd87BRZj /VHfszxkpoeTdLSN7r9/7p1Vp+1n8/A+5TGWX00dSYjWKxTnThpdykZvtOPLn5Pnajep pm9g== X-Received: by 10.236.99.39 with SMTP id w27mr2919633yhf.109.1406459485404; Sun, 27 Jul 2014 04:11:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.5] (adsl-65-0-122-210.jan.bellsouth.net. [65.0.122.210]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id o50sm31976233yhm.0.2014.07.27.04.11.24 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 27 Jul 2014 04:11:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <53D4DE5C.2080307@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 06:11:24 -0500 From: Dale User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:29.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/29.0 SeaMonkey/2.26.1 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] Contradictionary behaviour of SMART on hds ?!? References: <20140727101247.GA3817@solfire> <20140727112736.54eb3995@digimed.co.uk> <20140727104115.GB3817@solfire> In-Reply-To: <20140727104115.GB3817@solfire> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: e04702c3-e603-4ef2-9deb-6fd2ad521435 X-Archives-Hash: 9b7f7b4a36dcd5923269d2930902c00f meino.cramer@gmx.de wrote: > Neil Bothwick [14-07-27 12:32]: >> On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 12:12:47 +0200, meino.cramer@gmx.de wrote: >> >>> On the one hand, the surface test (extended offline and such) aborts >>> as soon the first read fgailure happens. >>> >>> On the other hand it is said: If the count of bad sectors increases >>> over time it is time to change the hd. >>> >>> How can the second happen, if the first is true??? >> My understanding is that the test only aborts if the error is severe >> enough to force it to do so. A simple bad block can be skipped and the >> rest of the drive tested. >> >> I've had a couple of drives get to the stage where SMART tests abort at >> an error and in both cases the manufacturer replaced them without >> question. >> >> >> -- >> Neil Bothwick >> >> If at first you do succeed, try to hide your astonishment. > Hi Dale, hi Neil, > > thanks for the infos. > > But it is slightly off the point I tried to explain (I am no native > english speaker...sorry...:) > > Suppose - as in my case - I have not yert managed to urge the hd to > map the bad sector off... > > Now...all tests abort after scanning 10% of the disk. Disk health > status is reported as "PASSED"...cause only one bad sector has been > found. > > But 90% of the space of the disk has never been scanned. > > Is this an implementation fault? > And if YES...is it the implementation of the firmware? > And: Is it my firmware or the one of the drive? > ;) > > Best regards, > mcc > Interesting. I was able to get mine to do a full test and give me a clean result. If yours doesn't, well, I'd be diggin me out a box and sending that puppy back to mommy. It seems to need some help. To me, errors is one thing, errors that can't be corrected is a whole new problem. It should fix it and pass the test. Even with my drive passing the test, I don't trust it yet. If it was still showing the error even after I did what I had done, I certainly wouldn't trust it. If yours can't finish the long self test, it may need repairs that are above our pay grade. Maybe Neil or someone will have more ideas. I hope. Dale :-) :-)