Is this normal for a Seagate drive?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by -=rjh=-, Apr 9, 2006.

  1. -=rjh=-

    -=rjh=- Guest

    I'm seeing *very* high raw error rates on a new Seagate drive, is this
    normal? As the output from smartctl -a /dev/hda shows, these errors are
    corrected internally so probably don't matter, but this behaviour is
    very different from WD drives (for example, which show 0 raw errors,
    even on a failing drive).

    Anyone here familiar with this aspect of Seagate drives, can comment?

    > # smartctl -a /dev/hda
    > smartctl version 5.33 [i686-redhat-linux-gnu] Copyright (C) 2002-4 Bruce Allen
    > Home page is http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net/
    >
    > === START OF INFORMATION SECTION ===
    > Device Model: ST3300831A
    > Serial Number: 4NF0YEHE
    > Firmware Version: 3.03
    > User Capacity: 300,069,052,416 bytes
    >
    > === START OF READ SMART DATA SECTION ===
    > SMART overall-health self-assessment test result: PASSED
    > Vendor Specific SMART Attributes with Thresholds:
    > ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE UPDATED WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE
    > 1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 0x000f 067 058 006 Pre-fail Always - 55065175
    > 3 Spin_Up_Time 0x0003 097 097 000 Pre-fail Always - 0
    > 4 Start_Stop_Count 0x0032 100 100 020 Old_age Always - 11
    > 5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct 0x0033 100 100 036 Pre-fail Always - 0
    > 7 Seek_Error_Rate 0x000f 063 060 030 Pre-fail Always - 2271342
    > 9 Power_On_Hours 0x0032 100 100 000 Old_age Always - 24
    > 10 Spin_Retry_Count 0x0013 100 100 097 Pre-fail Always - 0
    > 12 Power_Cycle_Count 0x0032 100 100 020 Old_age Always - 9
    > 194 Temperature_Celsius 0x0022 036 040 000 Old_age Always - 36 (Lifetime Min/Max 0/19)
    > 195 Hardware_ECC_Recovered 0x001a 070 061 000 Old_age Always - 102999878
    > 197 Current_Pending_Sector 0x0012 100 100 000 Old_age Always - 0
    > 198 Offline_Uncorrectable 0x0010 100 100 000 Old_age Offline - 0
    > 199 UDMA_CRC_Error_Count 0x003e 200 200 000 Old_age Always - 0
    > 200 Multi_Zone_Error_Rate 0x0000 100 253 000 Old_age Offline - 0
    > 202 TA_Increase_Count 0x0032 100 253 000 Old_age Always - 0
    >
    > SMART Error Log Version: 1
    > No Errors Logged
     
    -=rjh=-, Apr 9, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. -=rjh=- wrote:
    > I'm seeing *very* high raw error rates on a new Seagate drive, is this
    > normal? As the output from smartctl -a /dev/hda shows, these errors are
    > corrected internally so probably don't matter, but this behaviour is
    > very different from WD drives (for example, which show 0 raw errors,
    > even on a failing drive).
    >
    > Anyone here familiar with this aspect of Seagate drives, can comment?


    From what I can see, this is normal. Different drives present different
    statistics and in a different way, which would account for the
    difference between Seagate and WD.

    Cheers,
    Nicholas Sherlock

    --
    http://www.sherlocksoftware.org
     
    Nicholas Sherlock, Apr 9, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 12:03:37 +1200, -=rjh=- wrote:

    > I'm seeing *very* high raw error rates on a new Seagate drive, is this
    > normal? As the output from smartctl -a /dev/hda shows, these errors are
    > corrected internally so probably don't matter, but this behaviour is
    > very different from WD drives (for example, which show 0 raw errors,
    > even on a failing drive).
    >
    > Anyone here familiar with this aspect of Seagate drives, can comment?


    If the target value is 67, and the worst you've had is 58 and the trigger
    level is 6, then I think what you've got is OK.

    One of my discs hovers in the 53-58 zone and seems to be working normally.


    Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    Martin Taylor, GM of platform strategy at Microsoft: "We found
    that the Linux environment provided about 15 percent more end
    user loss of productivity." - *provided MORE loss of productivity*
     
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Apr 9, 2006
    #3
  4. -=rjh=-

    -=rjh=- Guest

    Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
    > On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 12:03:37 +1200, -=rjh=- wrote:
    >
    >> I'm seeing *very* high raw error rates on a new Seagate drive, is this
    >> normal? As the output from smartctl -a /dev/hda shows, these errors are
    >> corrected internally so probably don't matter, but this behaviour is
    >> very different from WD drives (for example, which show 0 raw errors,
    >> even on a failing drive).
    >>
    >> Anyone here familiar with this aspect of Seagate drives, can comment?

    >
    > If the target value is 67, and the worst you've had is 58 and the trigger
    > level is 6, then I think what you've got is OK.


    I'm aware of that - I said it doesn't appear to matter - it is just that
    a) I'm astounded at how high the error rate appears to be for Seagate
    drives, and b) WD drives show a raw read error rate raw data value of 0,
    ie are they hiding the real value?

    eg, for WD (stuffed, ref ID#198):

    > ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE UPDATED WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE
    > 1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 0x000b 200 064 051 Pre-fail Always - 0


    > 7 Seek_Error_Rate 0x000b 200 200 051 Pre-fail Always - 0


    > 196 Reallocated_Event_Count 0x0032 174 174 000 Old_age Always - 26
    > 197 Current_Pending_Sector 0x0012 111 111 000 Old_age Always - 1160
    > 198 Offline_Uncorrectable 0x0012 158 130 000 Old_age Always - 554
    > 199 UDMA_CRC_Error_Count 0x000a 200 200 000 Old_age Always - 3
    > 200 Multi_Zone_Error_Rate 0x0009 183 085 051 Pre-fail Offline - 557
     
    -=rjh=-, Apr 9, 2006
    #4
  5. On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 18:01:01 +1200, -=rjh=- wrote:

    >> If the target value is 67, and the worst you've had is 58 and the trigger
    >> level is 6, then I think what you've got is OK.

    >
    > I'm aware of that - I said it doesn't appear to matter - it is just that
    > a) I'm astounded at how high the error rate appears to be for Seagate
    > drives, and b) WD drives show a raw read error rate raw data value of 0,
    > ie are they hiding the real value?
    >
    > eg, for WD (stuffed, ref ID#198):
    >
    >> ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE UPDATED WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE
    >> 1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 0x000b 200 064 051 Pre-fail Always - 0


    It looks like the measurement values are quite different between those two
    companies.

    Seagate's target is 67
    Western Digital's is 200.

    Seagate's trigger point is 6
    Western Digital's point is 51

    The worst value on your seagate was 58/6
    The worst value on your Western Digital was 64/51

    I'd say your Seagate is perfectly fine with no problems, based on the fact
    that the seagate's read Raw Read error rate is very close to the target
    value.

    But if you have concerns, then speak with the sales droid who sold it to
    you.


    Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    --
    1/ Migration to Linux only costs money once. Higher Windows TCO is forever.
    2/ "Shared source" is a poison pill. Open Source is freedom.
    3/ Only the Windows boxes get the worms.
     
    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, Apr 9, 2006
    #5
  6. -=rjh=- wrote:
    > I'm seeing *very* high raw error rates on a new Seagate drive, is this
    > normal? As the output from smartctl -a /dev/hda shows, these errors are
    > corrected internally so probably don't matter, but this behaviour is
    > very different from WD drives (for example, which show 0 raw errors,
    > even on a failing drive).


    Yes it is fine. See my 120GB disk report below (that is 1.6 years old).
    I keep an eye on the Reallocated_Sector_Count raw value since that is
    one of the first indicators that something on the disk is flaky. Many
    disks survive with a few realloc'd sectors though; it is the delta/t
    that is significant.

    Cheers,
    Bruce

    Vendor Specific SMART Attributes with Thresholds:
    ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE
    UPDATED WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE
    1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 0x000f 071 059 006 Pre-fail Always
    - 156217831
    3 Spin_Up_Time 0x0003 096 096 000 Pre-fail Always
    - 0
    4 Start_Stop_Count 0x0032 100 100 020 Old_age Always
    - 24
    5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct 0x0033 100 100 036 Pre-fail Always
    - 0
    7 Seek_Error_Rate 0x000f 084 060 030 Pre-fail Always
    - 298246197
    9 Power_On_Hours 0x0032 084 084 000 Old_age Always
    - 14141
    10 Spin_Retry_Count 0x0013 100 100 097 Pre-fail Always
    - 0
    12 Power_Cycle_Count 0x0032 100 100 020 Old_age Always
    - 77
    194 Temperature_Celsius 0x0022 039 048 000 Old_age Always
    - 39
    195 Hardware_ECC_Recovered 0x001a 071 059 000 Old_age Always
    - 156217831
    197 Current_Pending_Sector 0x0012 100 100 000 Old_age Always
    - 0
    198 Offline_Uncorrectable 0x0010 100 100 000 Old_age
    Offline - 0
    199 UDMA_CRC_Error_Count 0x003e 200 200 000 Old_age Always
    - 0
    200 Multi_Zone_Error_Rate 0x0000 100 253 000 Old_age
    Offline - 0
    202 TA_Increase_Count 0x0032 100 253 000 Old_age Always
    - 0
     
    Bruce Fitzsimons, Apr 9, 2006
    #6
  7. -=rjh=-

    -=rjh=- Guest

    Bruce Fitzsimons wrote:
    > -=rjh=- wrote:
    >> I'm seeing *very* high raw error rates on a new Seagate drive, is this
    >> normal? As the output from smartctl -a /dev/hda shows, these errors are
    >> corrected internally so probably don't matter, but this behaviour is
    >> very different from WD drives (for example, which show 0 raw errors,
    >> even on a failing drive).

    >
    > Yes it is fine. See my 120GB disk report below (that is 1.6 years old).
    > I keep an eye on the Reallocated_Sector_Count raw value since that is
    > one of the first indicators that something on the disk is flaky. Many
    > disks survive with a few realloc'd sectors though; it is the delta/t
    > that is significant.


    Thanks, that is really helpful, looks like your drive is running
    continuously as most of mine are, too.

    These are mind-bogglingly huge numbers, and at the moment, my drive
    isn't even doing anything :) I must admit, I had no idea that modern
    drives achieved such high reliability from such an unreliable technology.

    >
    > Vendor Specific SMART Attributes with Thresholds:
    > ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE
    > UPDATED WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE
    > 1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 0x000f 071 059 006 Pre-fail Always
    > - 156217831
    > 3 Spin_Up_Time 0x0003 096 096 000 Pre-fail Always
    > - 0
    > 4 Start_Stop_Count 0x0032 100 100 020 Old_age Always
    > - 24
    > 5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct 0x0033 100 100 036 Pre-fail Always
    > - 0
    > 7 Seek_Error_Rate 0x000f 084 060 030 Pre-fail Always
    > - 298246197
    > 9 Power_On_Hours 0x0032 084 084 000 Old_age Always
    > - 14141
    > 10 Spin_Retry_Count 0x0013 100 100 097 Pre-fail Always
    > - 0
    > 12 Power_Cycle_Count 0x0032 100 100 020 Old_age Always
    > - 77
    > 194 Temperature_Celsius 0x0022 039 048 000 Old_age Always
    > - 39
    > 195 Hardware_ECC_Recovered 0x001a 071 059 000 Old_age Always
    > - 156217831
    > 197 Current_Pending_Sector 0x0012 100 100 000 Old_age Always
    > - 0
    > 198 Offline_Uncorrectable 0x0010 100 100 000 Old_age
    > Offline - 0
    > 199 UDMA_CRC_Error_Count 0x003e 200 200 000 Old_age Always
    > - 0
    > 200 Multi_Zone_Error_Rate 0x0000 100 253 000 Old_age
    > Offline - 0
    > 202 TA_Increase_Count 0x0032 100 253 000 Old_age Always
    > - 0
     
    -=rjh=-, Apr 9, 2006
    #7
  8. -=rjh=-

    -=rjh=- Guest

    Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
    > On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 18:01:01 +1200, -=rjh=- wrote:
    >
    >>> If the target value is 67, and the worst you've had is 58 and the trigger
    >>> level is 6, then I think what you've got is OK.

    >> I'm aware of that - I said it doesn't appear to matter - it is just that
    >> a) I'm astounded at how high the error rate appears to be for Seagate
    >> drives, and b) WD drives show a raw read error rate raw data value of 0,
    >> ie are they hiding the real value?
    >>
    >> eg, for WD (stuffed, ref ID#198):
    >>
    >>> ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE UPDATED WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE
    >>> 1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 0x000b 200 064 051 Pre-fail Always - 0

    >
    > It looks like the measurement values are quite different between those two
    > companies.


    Correct, SMART is used as a way of disguising the true values,
    manufacturers can then make their own call on when a drive is considered
    to be failing.

    >
    > Seagate's target is 67
    > Western Digital's is 200.
    >
    > Seagate's trigger point is 6
    > Western Digital's point is 51
    >
    > The worst value on your seagate was 58/6
    > The worst value on your Western Digital was 64/51
    >
    > I'd say your Seagate is perfectly fine with no problems, based on the fact
    > that the seagate's read Raw Read error rate is very close to the target
    > value.
    >
    > But if you have concerns, then speak with the sales droid who sold it to
    > you.


    No, I don't have any real concerns at this time, and anyway, what would
    I say, since as far as SMART is concerned, the drive is fine. But I'm
    asking here to get some data points I can compare.
     
    -=rjh=-, Apr 9, 2006
    #8
  9. -=rjh=-

    Dave Taylor Guest

    -=rjh=- <> wrote in news::

    > These are mind-bogglingly huge numbers, and at the moment, my drive
    > isn't even doing anything :) I must admit, I had no idea that modern
    > drives achieved such high reliability from such an unreliable technology.


    Generally, what they are showing is CRC correction type data. The high
    densities mean that the data is always going to be "fuzzy". Too fuzzy and
    it remaps.
    In general terms...

    If you go to GRC.com and look into the forums for spinrite, you will get
    much more detailed info on how your specific drive is displaying the data,
    and how it works on that model.

    --
    Ciao, Dave
     
    Dave Taylor, Apr 10, 2006
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Silverstrand

    Seagate 5GB Pocket Hard Drive @ Viperlair

    Silverstrand, Jul 1, 2005, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    1,058
    unholy
    Jul 5, 2005
  2. Silverstrand
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,031
    Silverstrand
    Jul 21, 2005
  3. Silverstrand
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    685
    Silverstrand
    Oct 17, 2005
  4. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    994
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  5. Squiggle
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    6,444
    Richard
    Dec 31, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page