From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1OJqiU-0005G7-8f for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2010 16:22:54 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 53A74E0CAB; Wed, 2 Jun 2010 16:22:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bw0-f53.google.com (mail-bw0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14EABE0CAB for ; Wed, 2 Jun 2010 16:22:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bwz12 with SMTP id 12so367351bwz.40 for ; Wed, 02 Jun 2010 09:22:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=R7nKmDxLx73cAHbiIroe9KG5wzxelzA768xN5WAXq0g=; b=OgOseJQwWGfTCVu6iKiSXCSUB2GFqVkNuY5glr0MFj0EqQsJgqK3K5aA+UHmNeFubz TLtLXy1+MZ3505L8KnUH60/wce8PAzsizBb0ROb3IKcyVN5zOZBhRTEs85ujwoPkK136 giXQ5lgOozP2SmRCyrrlulEZ9UEspgSo1iWxo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=Ffb35vIGERcWuM/Mwk+0vg12AwOQ6gFFk0k768NNOAOlTAIPYx0W+er2b+nbunL0ZX t3u2l/iv6dKGh9w7HXjNBO+uEYSPiZGAoCtvPZdWflF670yfyPjV/9p6DLFrI7tAbr7y SbJxGRk79ncODfBZ1Vh1io+lUTrKtTSEzztXg= 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 Received: by 10.204.83.78 with SMTP id e14mr1964688bkl.136.1275495727236; Wed, 02 Jun 2010 09:22:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.132.145 with HTTP; Wed, 2 Jun 2010 09:22:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4C0665AF.2090109@gmail.com> References: <4C0499F1.6050607@gmail.com> <4C0665AF.2090109@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 19:22:07 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] One hard drive much slower for some reason. From: "Arttu V." To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: afa9a323-a8a0-4310-899a-c7f12910e7fc X-Archives-Hash: f017fbbe8b5e691536452bd4de79f0a7 On 6/2/10, Dale wrote: > smoker-new ~ # smartctl -l selftest /dev/hdb > smartctl version 5.38 [i686-pc-linux-gnu] Copyright (C) 2002-8 Bruce Allen > Home page is http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net/ > > === START OF READ SMART DATA SECTION === > SMART Self-test log structure revision number 1 > Num Test_Description Status Remaining > LifeTime(hours) LBA_of_first_error > # 1 Extended offline Completed without error 00% > 1038 - > # 2 Short offline Completed without error 00% > 1037 - > # 3 Extended offline Completed without error 00% > 1075 - > # 4 Extended offline Completed without error 00% > 305 - > # 5 Extended offline Completed without error 00% > 660 - > # 6 Extended offline Completed without error 00% > 213 - > # 7 Extended offline Completed without error 00% > 687 - > # 8 Extended offline Completed without error 00% > 686 - > # 9 Extended offline Completed without error 00% > 629 - I was thinking about smartctl -A attributes table (or just plain -a for all), which might've showed a great number of sector relocations or other internal I/O-related issues. But this report raises another question: why aren't the reported lifetimes in an ascending list? They jump back and forth. -- Arttu V.