My Seagate HDD Running Slow

[jugalk1111]

Hi All,

My Seagate 500GB ST3500410AS is running extremely slow.
I sent my HDD to seagate company for replacement, My hard drive was rejected for replacement, i do not know exact reason,

So , I did formatted and partitioned my drive and installed windows xp sp3.
Nothing changed, my drive become slower than before after formatting .

I have installed HD Tune Pro. I have attached some screenshot.

Can anyone tell me what these benchmarks tell?

Attachments

[Vulcan]

My Seagate 500GB ST3500410AS is running extremely slow.

From the SMART data, it is clear that the drive is faulty, and the slow I/O is a typical result of this type of problem.

I sent my HDD to seagate company for replacement, My hard drive was rejected for replacement, i do not know exact reason,

I don't understand how you do not have a reason for them rejecting that - but anyway...

The drive is faulty. Since it seems that you do not need the data (based on your previous post), then just replace it - that will be cheaper, easier, and quicker than other options IMHO.

[einstein9]

if am not mistaking here most probably bad sectors on the beginning of your drive

[Vulcan]

@nhchmg:

DMA is off?

Not relevant here - that setting could not cause this specific data (shape of benchmark graph and SMART data) given by the OP.

[fzabkar]

I agree that the root cause of the slow performance is bad sectors, but the reason that the benchmark graph is a flat line is that Windows has downgraded the drive's performance from DMA mode to PIO because it has detected an excessive number of CRC errors.

DMA Mode for ATA/ATAPI Devices in Windows XP:
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/st ... E-DMA.mspx

DMA reverts to PIO:
http://winhlp.com/node/10

[Vulcan]

[...] the reason that the benchmark graph is a flat line [...]

The reason for my earlier comment was that the benchmark graph is not a flat line! The maximum speed seen is a flat line, yes, but not the actual shape of the data points.

Indeed the max speed has downgraded as you explain (again ), but that's a consequence, and not a cause, hence IMHO not useful to consider here, as "fixing" the DMA-related effect will be purely temporary in the OP's case.

I suspect we're in agreement, just looking at this from different starting points, but I couldn't let the comment about the benchmark graph being "flat" pass without a reply.