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: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20091118141442.G65262>