Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:18:23 +1100 (EST)
From:      Ian Smith <smithi@nimnet.asn.au>
To:        Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com>
Cc:        Bruce Cran <bruce@cran.org.uk>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Bad Blocks... Should I RMA?
Message-ID:  <20091118141442.G65262@sola.nimnet.asn.au>
In-Reply-To: <EA8AFE7A-BE51-42EE-8C94-E5F09D7698FC@mac.com>
References:  <20091116231341.40E3F10656B0@hub.freebsd.org> <20091118014634.S65262@sola.nimnet.asn.au> <EA8AFE7A-BE51-42EE-8C94-E5F09D7698FC@mac.com>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009, Chuck Swiger wrote:
 > On Nov 17, 2009, at 7:51 AM, Ian Smith wrote:
 > [ ... ]
 > > For instance, I've got two Fujitsu 5400rpm 2.5" drives in two laptops,
 > > one MHV2040AH with near 19,000 hours on it, and a much newer MHV2120AH,
 > > 40 and 120GB respectively.  Nice quiet low-power laptop drives, fwiw.
 > > 
 > > Both show as (more recently) being in the smartctl database, and both
 > > show _exactly_ the same values for this one:
 > > 
 > > 5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct   0x0033   100   100   024    Pre-fail  Always  -
 > > 8589934592000
 > > 
 > > Now if that were a number of 512-byte sectors, it'd be 4096000 GB! :)
 > > but both drives are 100% ok, as the VALUE / WORST figures show.
 > 
 > I wouldn't conclude that the drives were 100% OK from that line, although
 > they *might* be; I'd conclude that the drives aren't implementing this SMART
 > field correctly in their firmware.  Are you using the latest version of
 > smartctl-- updates to that can sometimes better interpret vendor-specific
 > odditities.

Hi Chuck,

Well, _Fujitsu_ reckon they're 100% OK on THAT attribute (100 100 024), 
which is the point I (and Bruce, I think) was trying to make, along with 
perhaps a gentle "don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia" :)

The smartctl program is not definitive for RAW_VALUE attributes; the 
manufacturer is.  Some raw values are manufacturer-specific, like this 
one, and the smartctl author likely concentrates on the lowest hanging 
fruit; its database is already huge.  This one is larger than 32 bits, 
possibly a mis-byte-ordered 48- or 64-bit value?  If the two drives 
showed different values I'd pursue trying different byte orderings.

And no, this certainly wouldn't be the latest smartctl; to compare the 
120G drive I installed (last night) smartmontools on a 7.0 system that's 
soon to be upgraded to 7-STABLE, so using a 7.0-RELEASE ports tree with 
smartctl 5.37, which shows '009 Power_On_Seconds' as the only odd value 
for this make/model, from smartctl -P show /dev/ad0

cheers, Ian



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20091118141442.G65262>