From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 17 17:55:07 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE8C810656A7 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:55:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from asmtpout014.mac.com (asmtpout014.mac.com [17.148.16.89]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAE8A8FC1F for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:55:07 +0000 (UTC) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Received: from cswiger1.apple.com ([17.227.140.124]) by asmtp014.mac.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-8.01 (built Dec 16 2008; 32bit)) with ESMTPSA id <0KT9002T1LRT6B90@asmtp014.mac.com> for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Tue, 17 Nov 2009 09:55:07 -0800 (PST) Message-id: From: Chuck Swiger To: Ian Smith In-reply-to: <20091118014634.S65262@sola.nimnet.asn.au> Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 09:55:05 -0800 References: <20091116231341.40E3F10656B0@hub.freebsd.org> <20091118014634.S65262@sola.nimnet.asn.au> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936) Cc: FreeBSD - Subject: Re: Bad Blocks... Should I RMA? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:55:07 -0000 Hi-- On Nov 17, 2009, at 7:51 AM, Ian Smith wrote: [ ... ] > For instance, I've got two Fujitsu 5400rpm 2.5" drives in two laptops, > one MHV2040AH with near 19,000 hours on it, and a much newer > MHV2120AH, > 40 and 120GB respectively. Nice quiet low-power laptop drives, fwiw. > > Both show as (more recently) being in the smartctl database, and both > show _exactly_ the same values for this one: > > 5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct 0x0033 100 100 024 Pre-fail > Always - 8589934592000 > > Now if that were a number of 512-byte sectors, it'd be 4096000 GB! :) > but both drives are 100% ok, as the VALUE / WORST figures show. I wouldn't conclude that the drives were 100% OK from that line, although they *might* be; I'd conclude that the drives aren't implementing this SMART field correctly in their firmware. Are you using the latest version of smartctl-- updates to that can sometimes better interpret vendor-specific odditities. Regards, -- -Chuck