On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 08:58:01AM +0100, Ulrich Windl wrote:
> On 25 Jan 2007 at 17:12, Jacques Normand wrote:
>
> > OK, this is a solved issue. It was a bad hard-drive, but broken in a way
> > which did not show up in smart. But now, with new hd, no more debsums
> > going crazzy nor random segfaults :-)
>
> actually that put's S.M.A.R.T. in question: I had a (almost new) disk where
> SMART
> reported "Good", although there was an increasing number of read errors and
> remapped sectors. The "drive fitness test" of the vendor classified the disk
> as
> "defective" with two different codes (excessive shock, too many defective
> sectors).
>
> Sorry for this off-topic, but I'd recommend to everyone to check newly
> shipped
> disks if the packaging seems not suitable.
Well, I never trust the overall health value reported by smart. I
usually look for the read error rate and ecc correction as well as the
relocation count and the udma crc one. If those move too much, I trash
the drive (the drive is cheaper than the possible data loss). But in
that case, all were normal and the surface test reported ok...
jacques
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
|
Home