From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Fri Jul 3 02:48:03 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E0D499403C for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2015 02:48:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from wonkity.com (wonkity.com [67.158.26.137]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "wonkity.com", Issuer "wonkity.com" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 402902210 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2015 02:48:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from wonkity.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wonkity.com (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t632m0W2066087 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 2 Jul 2015 20:48:01 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from localhost (wblock@localhost) by wonkity.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/Submit) with ESMTP id t632m0dm066084; Thu, 2 Jul 2015 20:48:00 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2015 20:48:00 -0600 (MDT) From: Warren Block To: Quartz cc: FreeBSD questions Subject: Re: slightly off topic: SMART error values for seagate drives In-Reply-To: <5595EE90.5050105@sneakertech.com> Message-ID: References: <5595EE90.5050105@sneakertech.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (BSF 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (wonkity.com [127.0.0.1]); Thu, 02 Jul 2015 20:48:01 -0600 (MDT) X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2015 02:48:03 -0000 On Thu, 2 Jul 2015, Quartz wrote: > I can't tell what's going on with SMART values anymore, every vendor does > things differently and nothing's ever documented. Is having the reallocated > sectors value go up still a bad thing, or did seagate change what this means? > Why did the read error rate and crc recovered fields bottom out, but the seek > error rate is still in the clouds? Is this drive failing, or fine, or what? Reallocated sectors increasing is bad. Seagate has one or two spurious values that are high and always increasing, but that's not one of them. Time to replace that drive.