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 0E4CD13877A for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2014 03:34:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 89132E0B0A; Sun, 29 Jun 2014 03:34:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ve0-f196.google.com (mail-ve0-f196.google.com [209.85.128.196]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C0D4E0AEE for ; Sun, 29 Jun 2014 03:34:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ve0-f196.google.com with SMTP id oy12so1803780veb.7 for ; Sat, 28 Jun 2014 20:34:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=g+vgAW9hSXZ5HIWQ2j4DAJIPomXEdiriv9fNxH0NNhc=; b=tXTiGJSztJ7+gWjUqBWbtUNmg+vPTEtSGhZI2/2D+RJgpXlTaM+FvZIml8kFLpiunj v/eU2OfYy5D2UGsra6doZorsPHKPasn6LJfPvSp7c/ift16Y4Lz4lHYo+XXWs/XumKWH +RcN62jxwUivNjGuzSWnHg+ybJTICq4RhOYZc831A9lv/h6ywpqv8dh//5L028j12VZ8 Mfo7kyk/EhOC2hJKPxI2XQMJqE1ZwwtJJ+4V732BH49NlGaqfVplxx99KkMi7Nn22a2o 9ot7IdhhzFSA/LMzooZln7DsBEbS8HfJqLze9rBLI446a23Q3jXud87h1NSXqpxClmJO yuvg== 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 X-Received: by 10.52.252.193 with SMTP id zu1mr25131027vdc.7.1404012841476; Sat, 28 Jun 2014 20:34:01 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.52.72.19 with HTTP; Sat, 28 Jun 2014 20:34:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <53AF879A.1040904@gmail.com> References: <53AA050F.4070907@gmail.com> <53AF879A.1040904@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2014 23:34:01 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: hXtBwOY3z3gw2vUPzawyHS1WBek Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] smartctrl drive error @60% From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: da48c91e-35dd-4b7c-96d6-e67cb5ee3303 X-Archives-Hash: 98b463dba140bec31f5691979b6820db On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 11:27 PM, Dale wrote: > > So, thoughts? Did it mark that part as bad and all is well or is this > going to be trouble down the line? Should I just fill the thing up with > data and test the stuffin out of it to make sure? > That is pretty typical. You wrote to every sector on the drive. You don't need to be able to read a sector to overwrite it, so doing this cleared out the drive's list of offline uncorrectable sectors. If you're fortunate it relocated those sectors in which case the drive is only using good sectors now. It can't relocate a sector unless it either gets a successful read, or it is overwritten, and you overwrote them. Either way the extended offline test passing isn't unusual. Either it relocated the sectors in which case the drive is "completely good" or the data written to the bad sectors was readable when the test was run, which doesn't guarantee that it will still be readable a day/week/month/year from now. Unfortunately I don't think there is any way to find out what the firmware is doing, or to predict the likelihood of another failure. The only thing we can say for sure that like all hard drives, it WILL fail sometime. Rich