Re: [gentoo-user] SMART drive test results, 2.0 for same drive as before.
J. Roeleveld wrote: On 7 February 2015 17:25:22 CET, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: A little update on this drive for those interested. I get this now. root@fireball / # smartctl --all /dev/sdd smartctl 6.3 2014-07-26 r3976 [x86_64-linux-3.16.3-gentoo] (local build) Copyright (C) 2002-14, Bruce Allen, Christian Franke, www.smartmontools.org === START OF INFORMATION SECTION === Vendor: /4:0:0:0 Product: Compliance: SPC-5 User Capacity: 600,332,565,813,390,450 bytes [600 PB] Logical block size: 774843950 bytes scsiModePageOffset: response length too short, resp_len=47 offset=50 bd_len=46 scsiModePageOffset: response length too short, resp_len=47 offset=50 bd_len=46 Terminate command early due to bad response to IEC mode page A mandatory SMART command failed: exiting. To continue, add one or more '-T permissive' options. root@fireball / # If I use cgdisk, I get this first thing. Warning! Non-GPT or damaged disk detected! This program will attempt to convert to GPT form or repair damage to GPT data structures, but may not succeed. Use gdisk or another disk repair tool if you have a damaged GPT disk. And then it says the drive is this BIG: 8.0 ZiB What the heck is that? Anyway, I guess after almost 4 months of uptime, time to shutdown and disconnect one pretty much dead drive. It was fun playing with tho. Now it will be fun to use as target. ;-) Dale :-) :-) 8ZiB = 8000 PiB = 800 GiB. Eg. That's one really big disk! Put it with just that on Ebay and see who falls for it? -- Joost Well, I got it removed now. It seems that I may have to build one of those init thingys again tho. I got a few errors while booting. New thread on that later. :-@ I googled and yea, that is a large drive. I wonder if one that size really even exists tho? It seems something is ready for a drive that big since it thinks that one is. I guess. At least we know now, don't trust a drive when it starts spitting out errors like that. Now I can practice with my new pistol tho. ;-) Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] SMART drive test results, 2.0 for same drive as before.
Dale wrote: Howdy, This is concerning a hard drive I had issues with a while back. I been using it to do backups with as a test if nothing else. Anyway, it seems to have issues once again. A little update on this drive for those interested. I get this now. root@fireball / # smartctl --all /dev/sdd smartctl 6.3 2014-07-26 r3976 [x86_64-linux-3.16.3-gentoo] (local build) Copyright (C) 2002-14, Bruce Allen, Christian Franke, www.smartmontools.org === START OF INFORMATION SECTION === Vendor: /4:0:0:0 Product: Compliance: SPC-5 User Capacity:600,332,565,813,390,450 bytes [600 PB] Logical block size: 774843950 bytes scsiModePageOffset: response length too short, resp_len=47 offset=50 bd_len=46 scsiModePageOffset: response length too short, resp_len=47 offset=50 bd_len=46 Terminate command early due to bad response to IEC mode page A mandatory SMART command failed: exiting. To continue, add one or more '-T permissive' options. root@fireball / # If I use cgdisk, I get this first thing. Warning! Non-GPT or damaged disk detected! This program will attempt to convert to GPT form or repair damage to GPT data structures, but may not succeed. Use gdisk or another disk repair tool if you have a damaged GPT disk. And then it says the drive is this BIG: 8.0 ZiB What the heck is that? Anyway, I guess after almost 4 months of uptime, time to shutdown and disconnect one pretty much dead drive. It was fun playing with tho. Now it will be fun to use as target. ;-) Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] SMART drive test results, 2.0 for same drive as before.
On 7 February 2015 17:25:22 CET, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Dale wrote: Howdy, This is concerning a hard drive I had issues with a while back. I been using it to do backups with as a test if nothing else. Anyway, it seems to have issues once again. A little update on this drive for those interested. I get this now. root@fireball / # smartctl --all /dev/sdd smartctl 6.3 2014-07-26 r3976 [x86_64-linux-3.16.3-gentoo] (local build) Copyright (C) 2002-14, Bruce Allen, Christian Franke, www.smartmontools.org === START OF INFORMATION SECTION === Vendor: /4:0:0:0 Product: Compliance: SPC-5 User Capacity:600,332,565,813,390,450 bytes [600 PB] Logical block size: 774843950 bytes scsiModePageOffset: response length too short, resp_len=47 offset=50 bd_len=46 scsiModePageOffset: response length too short, resp_len=47 offset=50 bd_len=46 Terminate command early due to bad response to IEC mode page A mandatory SMART command failed: exiting. To continue, add one or more '-T permissive' options. root@fireball / # If I use cgdisk, I get this first thing. Warning! Non-GPT or damaged disk detected! This program will attempt to convert to GPT form or repair damage to GPT data structures, but may not succeed. Use gdisk or another disk repair tool if you have a damaged GPT disk. And then it says the drive is this BIG: 8.0 ZiB What the heck is that? Anyway, I guess after almost 4 months of uptime, time to shutdown and disconnect one pretty much dead drive. It was fun playing with tho. Now it will be fun to use as target. ;-) Dale :-) :-) 8ZiB = 8000 PiB = 800 GiB. Eg. That's one really big disk! Put it with just that on Ebay and see who falls for it? -- Joost -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Re: [gentoo-user] SMART drive test results, 2.0 for same drive as before.
It would be far better to use Spinrite (like I mentioned before) - to allow a really low level access to the drive. While Spinrite is running the HDD will not be able to automatically relocate sectors. I've been blown away how effective this piece of software is - even when run with (apparently) very knackered Maxtor drives!! It was like they were brought back from the dead... On 25 January 2015 at 13:41, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday 24 Jan 2015 18:18:36 Dale wrote: Since I already replaced this drive, nothing lost. We did learn something tho. Just because it claims to have fixed itself doesn't mean it will be a long term solution. ;-) Dale :-) :-) Your repeated dd action probably relocated some bad blocks. I would also run a long test overnight to see where and how it fails. I recently had a drive which went sideways on me. Running dd was successful in relocating some problematic sectors. However, repeating the smart tests revealed that more and more sectors were going bad. I recall a warning that a catastrophic drive failure was imminent, when reading the output of 'smartctl -a'. Instead of dd'ing the whole drive, just dd the suspect sector and repeat the smart tests to see how things move around. I concur with other posters that this drive should only be used for experimentation, rather than production or back ups. -- Regards, Mick -- All the best, Robert
Re: [gentoo-user] SMART drive test results, 2.0 for same drive as before.
On Saturday 24 Jan 2015 18:18:36 Dale wrote: Since I already replaced this drive, nothing lost. We did learn something tho. Just because it claims to have fixed itself doesn't mean it will be a long term solution. ;-) Dale :-) :-) Your repeated dd action probably relocated some bad blocks. I would also run a long test overnight to see where and how it fails. I recently had a drive which went sideways on me. Running dd was successful in relocating some problematic sectors. However, repeating the smart tests revealed that more and more sectors were going bad. I recall a warning that a catastrophic drive failure was imminent, when reading the output of 'smartctl -a'. Instead of dd'ing the whole drive, just dd the suspect sector and repeat the smart tests to see how things move around. I concur with other posters that this drive should only be used for experimentation, rather than production or back ups. -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] SMART drive test results, 2.0 for same drive as before.
Bob Wya wrote: It would be far better to use Spinrite (like I mentioned before) - to allow a really low level access to the drive. While Spinrite is running the HDD will not be able to automatically relocate sectors. I've been blown away how effective this piece of software is - even when run with (apparently) very knackered Maxtor drives!! It was like they were brought back from the dead... Hey Bob, I don't see the point in buying software to test this when I'm already certain I will not depend on it for anything. At this point, it will either be a doorstop or a target when I am out practicing with a pistol or rifle. Basically, I have zero plans to use this drive. It will be replaced. I'm just playing with it to see what I can learn and maybe, just maybe, someone else will learn from this as well. I've used spinrite before. I used to work for a fortune 500 computer company. We had pretty much every tool there was including spinrite. Thing is, this is the second time this drive has failed. One failure got me to take it out of normal use. Two failures makes it something to play with and a educational tool and nothing more. Basically, I'll never, never, trust that drive again with anything important. It's toast. I'd rather apply that money to buying a new drive. Keep in mind, I was backing up to it just to put data on it and let it run, just to see what it does. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] SMART drive test results, 2.0 for same drive as before.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Mick wrote: On Saturday 24 Jan 2015 18:18:36 Dale wrote: Since I already replaced this drive, nothing lost. We did learn something tho. Just because it claims to have fixed itself doesn't mean it will be a long term solution. ;-) Dale :-) :-) Your repeated dd action probably relocated some bad blocks. I would also run a long test overnight to see where and how it fails. I recently had a drive which went sideways on me. Running dd was successful in relocating some problematic sectors. However, repeating the smart tests revealed that more and more sectors were going bad. I recall a warning that a catastrophic drive failure was imminent, when reading the output of 'smartctl -a'. Instead of dd'ing the whole drive, just dd the suspect sector and repeat the smart tests to see how things move around. I concur with other posters that this drive should only be used for experimentation, rather than production or back ups. Hey Mick, I've dd'd the drive many times. That is the reason for the long delay since the original post. I would dd it then retest and repeat. Doing that on a 3TB drive takes a while. ;-) I mostly just wanted to see IF it could fix itself. Even if it did, I'm still not going to trust it. Heck, I didn't trust it after the first fail. Generally, when a drive starts to fail like this, it doesn't go well. Now if I still had a copy of spinrite or knew someone locally that did, I'd run it just to see what it says. One thing I know from the past, if spinrite says it is bad, you can take that to the bank because that opinion is worth gold. Spinrite either fixes the issue or lets you know to replace it. Again, this would be a learning experience. Even if spinrite says it fixed it, I'd use it as a back up and monitor it. It would take a miracle for me to trust that drive again. I'm trying to decide now if I want to save a little more and get a 4TB drive or just get another 3TB drive. Dale's thinking Dale :-) :-) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 iEYEARECAAYFAlTFP8gACgkQiBoxVpK2GMB1vgCgvk/4WiuAIaQR1V6NRgQzKl8s 668AnR0wLj7d+36uNOcxDOyirYvyaeZ4 =7zmG -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-user] SMART drive test results, 2.0 for same drive as before.
Nils Holland wrote: On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 11:29:53AM -0600, Dale wrote: Well, I have dd'd the thing a few times and ran the tests again, it still gives errors. What's odd, they seem to move around. Is there a bug crawling around in my drive?? lol # 1 Extended offlineCompleted: read failure 40% 21500 4032048552 #12 Extended offlineCompleted: read failure 40% 21406 4032272464 Well, the location of the first unreadable error is before the location of the second one, so it's entirely possible that the drive was eventually able to read the first bad sector and subsequently remapped it to a sparse sector. Of, depending on what other actions may have been done to the drive between the two tests shown, a write may have been done to the sector, which would also result immediately in a sparse sector being taken if the original sector looks suspicious to the drive. All of that should - at least a little bit of it - be visible by looking at the other smart statictics. The reallocated sector count would have gone up in such a case, and the number of currently pending sectors could have gone down. Still, even though the first bad sector might have been appropriately dealt with, there's obviously more wrong with the drive, as the second test shows. Personally, with the relatively low hard disk prices of recent years, I've always started distrusting drives as soon as they began showing bad / remapped sectors and failing self-tests, even though they still reported their own SMART status as fine. More times than not, just completely zeroing out a drive will fix the then-known bad sectors, as it triggers the drive's firmware to remap them, but in my experience a drive that started developing a few bad sectors will soon develop more of the same. So at least in environments dealing with important data, I'd quickly exchange such a drive and probably only continue to use it for less important stuff, like transferring data from one machine to another, where the failure of the transpoting drive would be harmless, as the data could at any time be gotten again from the original machine carrying it. Greetings, Nils This drive did report issues a while back, year or so I guess, and I got them corrected by dd'ing the drive etc. Anyway, I bought a new drive to replace it but have been using the one here as a backup drive mostly to test and just see what it would do long term. Well, it did last a while at least but as you rightly point out, it started having more issues. At least in this case, once the drive reported errors, it went downhill from there. I was sort of hoping it would work fine like one would expect but I'm not surprised that it is failing again. One thing I have learned about drives over the years, if it ever gets a error, you better replace it, just to be safe if nothing else. Since I already replaced this drive, nothing lost. We did learn something tho. Just because it claims to have fixed itself doesn't mean it will be a long term solution. ;-) Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] SMART drive test results, 2.0 for same drive as before.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 11:29:53AM -0600, Dale wrote: Well, I have dd'd the thing a few times and ran the tests again, it still gives errors. What's odd, they seem to move around. Is there a bug crawling around in my drive?? lol # 1 Extended offlineCompleted: read failure 40% 21500 4032048552 #12 Extended offlineCompleted: read failure 40% 21406 4032272464 Well, the location of the first unreadable error is before the location of the second one, so it's entirely possible that the drive was eventually able to read the first bad sector and subsequently remapped it to a sparse sector. Of, depending on what other actions may have been done to the drive between the two tests shown, a write may have been done to the sector, which would also result immediately in a sparse sector being taken if the original sector looks suspicious to the drive. All of that should - at least a little bit of it - be visible by looking at the other smart statictics. The reallocated sector count would have gone up in such a case, and the number of currently pending sectors could have gone down. Still, even though the first bad sector might have been appropriately dealt with, there's obviously more wrong with the drive, as the second test shows. Personally, with the relatively low hard disk prices of recent years, I've always started distrusting drives as soon as they began showing bad / remapped sectors and failing self-tests, even though they still reported their own SMART status as fine. More times than not, just completely zeroing out a drive will fix the then-known bad sectors, as it triggers the drive's firmware to remap them, but in my experience a drive that started developing a few bad sectors will soon develop more of the same. So at least in environments dealing with important data, I'd quickly exchange such a drive and probably only continue to use it for less important stuff, like transferring data from one machine to another, where the failure of the transpoting drive would be harmless, as the data could at any time be gotten again from the original machine carrying it. Greetings, Nils
Re: [gentoo-user] SMART drive test results, 2.0 for same drive as before.
Dale wrote: Howdy, This is concerning a hard drive I had issues with a while back. I been using it to do backups with as a test if nothing else. Anyway, it seems to have issues once again. SNIP Since this is the 2nd time for this specific drive, thoughts? By the way, I'm doing a dd to erase the drive just for giggles. Since it ain't blowing smoke, I may use it as a backup still, just to play with, until I can get another drive. I think that moved up the priority list a bit now. Thoughts? Dale :-) :-) Well, I have dd'd the thing a few times and ran the tests again, it still gives errors. What's odd, they seem to move around. Is there a bug crawling around in my drive?? lol # 1 Extended offlineCompleted: read failure 40% 21500 4032048552 #12 Extended offlineCompleted: read failure 40% 21406 4032272464 Anyway, I'm going to start saving up for a new drive. I may see if I can jump around that bad spot or something since right now, any backup is better than nothing at all. Well, sort of anyway. I'm just wondering if I should update to a 4TB drive instead of a 3TB one since I'm over half full already. :? /dev/mapper/Home2-Home2 2.7T 1.7T 1.1T 63% /home Thanks to Daniel and Bob for their replies. I think this drive needs a funeral. Once is bad enough but twice, not good. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] SMART drive test results, 2.0 for same drive as before.
Dale, As a double check I always like to test failing drives with Spinrite: https://www.grc.com/sr/spinrite.htm If that software can't recover/access any bits of the drive - it's pretty much a toaster in my book! Robert On 20 January 2015 at 17:58, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Howdy, This is concerning a hard drive I had issues with a while back. I been using it to do backups with as a test if nothing else. Anyway, it seems to have issues once again. root@fireball / # smartctl -l selftest /dev/sdd smartctl 6.3 2014-07-26 r3976 [x86_64-linux-3.16.3-gentoo] (local build) Copyright (C) 2002-14, Bruce Allen, Christian Franke, www.smartmontools.org === START OF READ SMART DATA SECTION === SMART Self-test log structure revision number 1 Num Test_DescriptionStatus Remaining LifeTime(hours) LBA_of_first_error # 1 Extended offlineCompleted: read failure 40% 21406 4032272464 # 2 Short offline Completed without error 00% 21387 - # 3 Short offline Completed without error 00% 21363 - # 4 Extended offlineCompleted: read failure 40% 21343 4032272464 # 5 Short offline Completed without error 00% 21315 - # 6 Short offline Completed without error 00% 21291 - # 7 Short offline Completed without error 00% 21267 - # 8 Short offline Completed without error 00% 21243 - # 9 Short offline Completed without error 00% 21219 - #10 Short offline Completed without error 00% 21195 - #11 Extended offlineCompleted: read failure 40% 21174 4032272464 #12 Short offline Completed without error 00% 21147 - #13 Short offline Completed without error 00% 21123 - #14 Short offline Completed without error 00% 21099 - #15 Short offline Completed without error 00% 21075 - #16 Short offline Completed without error 00% 21051 - #17 Short offline Completed without error 00% 21026 - #18 Extended offlineCompleted: read failure 40% 21005 4032267424 #19 Short offline Completed without error 00% 20978 - #20 Short offline Completed without error 00% 20954 - #21 Short offline Completed without error 00% 20930 - root@fireball / # More info: ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE UPDATED WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE 1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 0x000f 116 099 006Pre-fail Always - 114620384 3 Spin_Up_Time0x0003 092 092 000Pre-fail Always - 0 4 Start_Stop_Count0x0032 100 100 020Old_age Always - 39 5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct 0x0033 053 051 036Pre-fail Always - 62752 7 Seek_Error_Rate 0x000f 080 060 030Pre-fail Always - 102219639 9 Power_On_Hours 0x0032 076 076 000Old_age Always - 21403 10 Spin_Retry_Count0x0013 100 100 097Pre-fail Always - 0 12 Power_Cycle_Count 0x0032 100 100 020Old_age Always - 40 183 Runtime_Bad_Block 0x0032 100 100 000Old_age Always - 0 184 End-to-End_Error0x0032 100 100 099Old_age Always - 0 187 Reported_Uncorrect 0x0032 100 100 000Old_age Always - 0 188 Command_Timeout 0x0032 100 100 000Old_age Always - 0 0 0 189 High_Fly_Writes 0x003a 100 100 000Old_age Always - 0 190 Airflow_Temperature_Cel 0x0022 068 063 045Old_age Always - 32 (Min/Max 23/36) 191 G-Sense_Error_Rate 0x0032 100 100 000Old_age Always - 0 192 Power-Off_Retract_Count 0x0032 100 100 000Old_age Always - 11 193 Load_Cycle_Count0x0032 001 001 000Old_age Always - 276725 194 Temperature_Celsius 0x0022 032 040 000Old_age Always - 32 (0 17 0 0 0) 197 Current_Pending_Sector 0x0012 088 088 000Old_age Always - 1984 198 Offline_Uncorrectable 0x0010 088 088 000Old_age Offline - 1984 199 UDMA_CRC_Error_Count0x003e 200 200 000Old_age Always - 0 240 Head_Flying_Hours 0x 100 253 000Old_age Offline - 18810h+14m+31.520s 241 Total_LBAs_Written 0x 100 253 000Old_age Offline - 110684232213092 242 Total_LBAs_Read 0x 100 253 000Old_age Offline - 92603114597547 I thought I would check this thing manually just to be nosy. When I saw the errors, I then
Re: [gentoo-user] SMART drive test results, 2.0 for same drive as before.
On 01/20/2015 09:58 AM, Dale wrote: 1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 0x000f 116 099 006Pre-fail Always - 114620384 5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct 0x0033 053 051 036Pre-fail Always - 62752 197 Current_Pending_Sector 0x0012 088 088 000Old_age Always - 1984 198 Offline_Uncorrectable 0x0010 088 088 000Old_age Offline - 1984 Anyway, no clue how long this issue has been going on but there it is again. When I google, some places say this is somewhat normal. Some say it needs to be watched and some say the world is coming to a end and we are all going to die a horrible death. Me, I'm thinking this drive came out the south end of a north bound something bad, skunk maybe. Basically, it stinks and I'm not real happy about it. :-@ Based on those 4 I quoted from your original post I wouldn't use the drive anymore. It's indicating it can't correct some of the bad sectors and they're still visible to the OS (Current_Pending_Sector). This is very bad. It's also reallocated some sectors and they are not visible to the OS anymore. It's reallocated 62752 sectors. Since this is the 2nd time for this specific drive, thoughts? Recycle it. By the way, I'm doing a dd to erase the drive just for giggles. Since it ain't blowing smoke, I may use it as a backup still, just to play with, until I can get another drive. I think that moved up the priority list a bit now. Don't rely on this drive for backups. Dan
