Data recovery and disk repair questions and discussions related to old-fashioned SATA, SAS, SCSI, IDE, MFM hard drives - any type of storage device that has moving parts
September 19th, 2017, 5:52
Where did you get that number of 3 seek errors from? can't see anything like that in the screenshots. :s
September 19th, 2017, 7:01
pepe wrote:Where did you get that number of 3 seek errors from? can't see anything like that in the screenshots. :s
IIUC, you have been in the data recovery business for more than 10 years, so presumably you would have handled 100s, if not 1000s, of Seagate drives of all generations. Have you not noticed that all drives have the same kind of seek error rate statistics, or did you just assume that all drives that came into your lab were affected by seek faults?
As for the "3" ...
Current=79, Worst=60, Raw=0x003106AAFFE
You can find a detailed explanation earlier in this thread.
September 19th, 2017, 8:06
No, i practically never check SMART, if i do i am only interested in reallocation event counts.
The drives i get are crap enough not to be able to read smart at all, and when i get them read user area smart is irrelevant again.
pepe
September 20th, 2017, 3:22
btw, just checked an ST3500520AS which came my way. it has values of 100 30 253(?) 341 (value, treshold, worst, raw) for attribute 07, significantly different than what this drive had.
pepe
September 20th, 2017, 4:08
pepe wrote:btw, just checked an ST3500520AS which came my way. it has values of 100 30 253(?) 341 (value, treshold, worst, raw) for attribute 07, significantly different than what this drive had.
pepe
Read the spec.
September 20th, 2017, 4:37
i have no time to look it up, though i would be interested of course. It has perfectly no use in my field, so if i want to spend time on something i want to spend it on useful stuff.
September 20th, 2017, 5:14
pepe wrote:i have no time to look it up, though i would be interested of course. It has perfectly no use in my field, so if i want to spend time on something i want to spend it on useful stuff.
September 20th, 2017, 11:35
Thx Frank.
it puts things in a different perspective indeed, both 79 and 60 gets its meaning. However their calculation is a bit odd, as it gives 60% even with no seek errors in 1M seeks, they probably use 1 instead of 0 to avoid getting an infinite number, thus getting an attribute value of 60 at 1M seeks. Kind of useless.
pepe
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.