-
SMART data
What ho one ans all,
Have taken delivery of two 2tb Seagate hdd to be used for photo file backup purposes. As I write, am formatting the second drive.
The first drive formatted as it should and Crystal Disk Info (as far as I can understand the data) gave all parameters the OK. While I have not completed formatting of the second, CDI is showing some differences.
I have three hdd installed and the Current / Worst / Threshold / RAW for Seek Rate Errors, for Disk 0, 1, and 2 are 100,235,0,0 / 200,200,51,0 / 200,200,51,0. I don't know what it means, but since they are all similar, I would guess OK.
But the Seagate 2tb as I format is giving 100,253,30 253. Given that the internal RAW data of the internal hdd are all 0, what does the new hdd with a RAW reading of 253 tell me?
The HDD is dodgy?
Toodle pip and thanks
Rex
-
So two 2tb hdd have been formated and the general Crystal Disk Info flag says 'Good.' So I guess that is good.
But the two attached SMART jpg files leave me wondering. But both RAW Read Error Rates are very big numbers. My other three internal hdd (ceratinly not 2tb in size) have RAW read error rates of 0.
What am I missing? Should I return them?
Rex
-
2 Attachment(s)
SWMBO called dinner and I forgot to attach the files!
Attachment 14261Attachment 14263
-
It could just be what Seagate is using that particular S.M.A.R.T. stat for.
Possibly useful link:
http://www.computerworld.com/article...e-failure.html
-
Interesting, although I'm not sure I know what it means. Seems to imply that SMART stats vary between manufacturers so much that they are virtually meaningless.
So I guess the important feature of my hdd is the headline 'Good.'
-
Don't know that I understand it but I found this during a Google search.
"PLEASE completely ignore the RAW_VALUE number! Only Seagates report the raw value, which yes, does appear to be the number of raw read errors, but should be ignored, completely. All other drives have raw read errors too, but do not report them, leaving this value as zero only. To repeat, Seagates are not worse than other drives because they appear to have raw read errors, rather they are the only one to report the number. I suspect that others do not report the number to avoid a lot of confusion, and questions for their tech support people. Seagate leaves those of us who provide tech support the job of answering the constant questions about this number. Hopefully now that you understand this, you will never bother a kind IT person with questions about the Raw_Read_Error_Rate RAW_VALUE again? "
-
Rex,
I saw that also. Some of my Seagate drives report 0 for the Raw Read Error Rate, some do not. If you actually getting that many REAL read errors, the drives would be unusable. The link I posted shows the S.M.A.R.T. values that you should be looking at to check for actual errors that might indicate a bad drive.
-
I phoned Seagate support in the UK and was transferred to the US. The guy was not very helpful with regard to SMART results but did advise that I install SeaTools and was a bit sniffy when I told him that I am still on XP.
However, the long test, which took around 4 hours on a 2 tb, reported Pass, so I guess there is nothing to concern myself.
Toodle pip
-
Those DOS type programs are slow.
If it passed that test, I would accept it as good myself.
SMART I know is there, but would not trust it myself. But that is just my take on it.
-
1 Attachment(s)
-
At the moment, all the hdd are WD and to date, no failures.
But then, I'm not using the computer 24/7/365
-
Still using a couple of WD Blacks (5 year warranty) as storage drives here as well. No complaints.
