![]() Most drives probably have at least some surface flaws when they are manufactured some manufacturers will set the RSC value to zero as it leaves the factory, while others may not and there may be a small number. When you get a new drive, the very first thing you do - even before you format or partition it - is check the SMART values and make a particular note of the RSC value. When RSC starts to grow, that means a surface failure is spreading which is obviously very bad. After the test, whether it reports success or failure, look at the SMART values again and see if Reallocated Sector Count (RSC) has gone up from zero. The ten hour test is, among other things, going to attempt to write to and read each sector, perhaps multiple times. I'm no expert on whether SeaTools reports are always accurate but since the drive is three years old, I would just retire it. Plenty of people see drives reporting perfect SMART scores while the drive is pounding on the desk like a jackhammer. ![]() These raw values are zero, so SMART isn't seeing whatever errors that SeaTools reported, which is odd I would expect Reallocation Sector Count to be not zero if another utility reported an error. Most of the others are self-explanatory enough. The really important attributes are Reallocation Sector Count (which means a sector could not be written to and was marked as bad but data wasn't lost because it was a write attempt) and Uncorrectable Errors Count (really bad news, a sector of data was lost because it couldn't be read). Spinup time has gone down in rank from 185 to 176, but the threshold is 21 so it would have to go down maybe a lot farther to be considered failing the raw hex value 1A45 converts to 6725 in decimal, but your guess is good as mine about what that means in terms of spin-up time (0.6725 seconds? 6.725 milliseconds? I dunno.) The Power-On Hours Count raw value here is 59ED, but most humans can't translate hex in our heads so you use a hex-to-dec calculator to find out that 59ED = 23021 hours. The temperature is clearly labeled as not being hex by reading 27 C (and you get a hint about the ranking system because on a scale of 120 to 0, 27 C ranks 97). It's easy to see that zero is 0 in both decimal and hexidecimal so you can see why most of the values are all passing. Some of them return the number in decimal, this drive reports most of the numbers in hexidecimal, and some unfriendly drives might even report numbers that were encrypted or something (fortunately that's not common). Different manufacturers of hard drives return different things in this column. ![]() The "Raw" value may or may not be the actual value of the attribute. If the "Threshold" value is 000, that means there is no threshold, the ranking system is irrelevant and the Raw column has data for example, for a HDD there is no maximum number of Power-On Hours Count, you just want to know how many hours the HDD has been run so it doesn't need a rank. ![]() The "Threshold" column is the score in the ranking system that would indicate the drive is probably failing. Here, except for the temperature and Spin Up Time, all of the "Worst" values are equal to the "Value" values, meaning none of them have fallen from the best possible rank. The "Worst" column is the drive's current score on that attribute's rank. So for an attribute that has a "Value" of 200, that means 200 is the best, 199 is the next best, and you have no idea how much it takes to go from 200 to 199. The ranking doesn't represent the actual value, any more than it would to say the person who came in first place won 20 points by finishing the race in 3 minutes 38 seconds, the person who came in second won 7 points by finishing the race in 5 minutes 2 seconds, and so forth they would still be ranked 1 and 2, and there's no way for you to know what the actual value is from the rank. Here, 200 is the winner, 199 came in second place, and so on. It's backwards to what we would usually think of a rank system, where #1 is the winner, #2 came in second place, and so forth. The "Value" column shows the maximum possible ranking some of these are ranked 200 to 0, some are 139 to 0, and so on, where 200 is the best possible ranking and 0 is the worst possible ranking. SMART readings are not very intuitive (okay, totally confusing) if you haven't seen them before.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |