Dale wrote: > Howdy, > > I run this test every once in a while. How bad is this: > > root@fireball / # smartctl -l selftest /dev/sdc > smartctl 6.1 2013-03-16 r3800 [x86_64-linux-3.14.0-gentoo] (local build) > Copyright (C) 2002-13, Bruce Allen, Christian Franke, www.smartmontools.org > > === 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: read failure 60% > 16365 2905482560 > # 2 Extended offline Completed: read failure 60% > 16352 2905482560 > # 3 Extended offline Completed without error 00% > 8044 - > # 4 Extended offline Completed without error 00% > 3121 - > > And better yet, is there any way to tell it to not use that part and > finish the test? It seems it stopped when it got to that, or I think it > did. > > Thoughts? > > Dale > > :-) :-) >
OK. Update. I got the new drive in, copied the files over, tested the new drive A LOT, then did a dd on the old drive and wiped the WHOLE thing. I let dd run until it ran out of space and died, which took a pretty good while. After dd finished, I ran the Smart test again. This is what I get now: root@fireball / # smartctl -l selftest /dev/sdd smartctl 6.1 2013-03-16 r3800 [x86_64-linux-3.14.0-gentoo] (local build) Copyright (C) 2002-13, Bruce Allen, Christian Franke, www.smartmontools.org === 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% 16466 - # 2 Extended offline Aborted by host 90% 16461 - # 3 Extended offline Completed: read failure 60% 16451 2905482560 # 4 Extended offline Completed: read failure 60% 16432 2905482560 # 5 Extended offline Completed: read failure 60% 16427 2905482560 Ignore the second one, I started the test on the old drive and was meaning to do it on the new drive. When dd finished, I wanted to start a fresh test so I killed the second one. As you can see in the latest test, no errors. 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? Thanks. Dale :-) :-)
