Seagate SMART, Raw Read Error Rate, Seek Error Rate
Franc Zabkar
Seagate hard drives. Both have very high numbers for the Raw Read
Error Rate and Seek Error Rate. At the moment the Raw Read Error Rate
for the 13GB seems to be unchanging, but the Seek Error Rate increases
every time I look at it. Also, if I compare today's Raw Read Error
Rate with the result from two years ago, the number is actually much
lower today. Does anyone know how these figures are calculated, or
even if they mean what they appear to mean?
These are recent reports produced by SmartUDM:
http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/13GB.RPT
http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/120GB.RPT
These reports were produced by Everest:
http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/SMART_05.txt (2005)
http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/SMART_07.txt (2007)
http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/SMART_scandisk.txt
The first report was done in Sept 2005, the second in the last couple
of days. The last report is the result after running Scandisk.
BTW, the Current Pending Sector Count of 1 reflects a sector that has
been marked as bad by the OS. I suspect that the drive's controller is
aware that it is bad, but it cannot relocate it until such time as the
OS writes to it, thereby signalling that the data in that sector is no
longer of any consequence.
FWIW, SeaTools Desktop v3.00 says the 13GB drive is OK, apart from one
bad sector.
- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
Arno Wagner
> I'm trying to make sense of the SMART reports for my 13GB and 120GB
> Seagate hard drives. Both have very high numbers for the Raw Read
> Error Rate and Seek Error Rate.
Raw read error is very hard to interpret and usually not
important anyways. Seek errors are usually a poer problem
or a vibration problem. They may also indicate a problem
with the disk.
> At the moment the Raw Read Error Rate
> for the 13GB seems to be unchanging, but the Seek Error Rate increases
> every time I look at it. Also, if I compare today's Raw Read Error
> Rate with the result from two years ago, the number is actually much
> lower today. Does anyone know how these figures are calculated, or
> even if they mean what they appear to mean?
> These are recent reports produced by SmartUDM:
> http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/13GB.RPT
> http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/120GB.RPT
> These reports were produced by Everest:
> http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/SMART_05.txt (2005)
> http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/SMART_07.txt (2007)
> http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/SMART_scandisk.txt
> The first report was done in Sept 2005, the second in the last couple
> of days. The last report is the result after running Scandisk.
> BTW, the Current Pending Sector Count of 1 reflects a sector that has
> been marked as bad by the OS.
Not quite. It represents a sector that the drive has given up on, but
not yet been able to replace, because it was not written to it.
The OS does not factor into this.
A bad sector marked by the disk (and invisible to the OS) can
be counter as "reallocation event" or "reallocated sector
count". If these numbers start growing, something is seriously
wrong.
> I suspect that the drive's controller is
> aware that it is bad, but it cannot relocate it until such time as the
> OS writes to it, thereby signalling that the data in that sector is no
> longer of any consequence.
Yes.
> FWIW, SeaTools Desktop v3.00 says the 13GB drive is OK, apart from one
> bad sector.
One bad sector is no reason for concern. If they start to get more,
that would be.
Arno
Franc Zabkar
keyboard and composed:
Sorry, my statement was ambiguous. Maybe I should have written that
"the Current Pending Sector Count of 1 coincides with a sector that
has been marked as bad by the OS".
>A bad sector marked by the disk (and invisible to the OS) can
>be counter as "reallocation event" or "reallocated sector
>count". If these numbers start growing, something is seriously
>wrong.
The numbers *are* growing. In fact they've grown from 34 to 119 in two
years. I've been preparing to replace the drive for quite some time
now. However, it's only in the last month or so that the drive has
been making occasional noises, ie a very soft clink, probably from the
voice coil positioner.
>> I suspect that the drive's controller is
>> aware that it is bad, but it cannot relocate it until such time as the
>> OS writes to it, thereby signalling that the data in that sector is no
>> longer of any consequence.
>
>Yes.
>
>> FWIW, SeaTools Desktop v3.00 says the 13GB drive is OK, apart from one
>> bad sector.
>
>One bad sector is no reason for concern. If they start to get more,
>that would be.
>
>Arno
I now have a batch file that runs just prior to shutdown. Among other
things, it captures SMART data and appends it to a log file. It'll be
interesting to monitor the drive as it progresses toward total
failure. :-)
BTW, these are the SMART data for my Fujitsu 6GB drive:
http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/6GB.RPT
Notice the raw value for "Power On Hours Count".
0000008EF98Ah = 9369994 dec
= 1069 years
In fact the figure appears to represent Power On Seconds.
Arno Wagner
> On 1 Sep 2007 07:29:59 GMT, Arno Wagner <m...@privacy.net> put finger to
> keyboard and composed:
>>Previously Franc Zabkar <fza...@iinternode.on.net> wrote:
[...]
>>> BTW, the Current Pending Sector Count of 1 reflects a sector that has
>>> been marked as bad by the OS.
>>
>>Not quite. It represents a sector that the drive has given up on, but
>>not yet been able to replace, because it was not written to it.
>>The OS does not factor into this.
> Sorry, my statement was ambiguous. Maybe I should have written that
> "the Current Pending Sector Count of 1 coincides with a sector that
> has been marked as bad by the OS".
Ok.
>>A bad sector marked by the disk (and invisible to the OS) can
>>be counter as "reallocation event" or "reallocated sector
>>count". If these numbers start growing, something is seriously
>>wrong.
> The numbers *are* growing. In fact they've grown from 34 to 119 in two
> years. I've been preparing to replace the drive for quite some time
> now. However, it's only in the last month or so that the drive has
> been making occasional noises, ie a very soft clink, probably from the
> voice coil positioner.
Well. Personally I stop trustinf a disk around 10 or so, unless
they all happened in one burst. I have had one Maxtor disk with
something like 200 reallocated sectors in one event, which
did run fine without any additional ones for three years afterwards.
So, it could be a problem with power (spikes, I would suspect),
mechanical shock/vibration or the like. Or the disk could have
a problem. I would replace that one. Also, at some time the disk will
run out of spare sectors.
>>> I suspect that the drive's controller is
>>> aware that it is bad, but it cannot relocate it until such time as the
>>> OS writes to it, thereby signalling that the data in that sector is no
>>> longer of any consequence.
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>> FWIW, SeaTools Desktop v3.00 says the 13GB drive is OK, apart from one
>>> bad sector.
>>
>>One bad sector is no reason for concern. If they start to get more,
>>that would be.
>>
>>Arno
> I now have a batch file that runs just prior to shutdown. Among other
> things, it captures SMART data and appends it to a log file. It'll be
> interesting to monitor the drive as it progresses toward total
> failure. :-)
> BTW, these are the SMART data for my Fujitsu 6GB drive:
> http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/6GB.RPT
> Notice the raw value for "Power On Hours Count".
> 0000008EF98Ah = 9369994 dec
> = 1069 years
> In fact the figure appears to represent Power On Seconds.
This is a non-standardized field, AFAIK. Bogus readings are
no surprise here.
Arno
Franc Zabkar
keyboard and composed:
I suspect that the figures aren't necessarily bogus, they may just
need to be interpreted differently between manufacturers. That said, I
haven't been able to find any detailed SMART documentation at any of
the manufacturers' web sites.
Franc Zabkar
keyboard and composed:
>Previously Franc Zabkar <fza...@iinternode.on.net> wrote:
>> I'm trying to make sense of the SMART reports for my 13GB and 120GB
>> Seagate hard drives. Both have very high numbers for the Raw Read
>> Error Rate and Seek Error Rate.
>
>Raw read error is very hard to interpret and usually not
>important anyways. Seek errors are usually a poer problem
>or a vibration problem. They may also indicate a problem
>with the disk.
I'm running Win98SE. While monitoring file accesses with Filemon (from
SysInternals), I used Everest Home Edition (ver 2.20.405) to monitor
the drive's SMART data. Every time I refreshed the SMART report (using
F5), the Seek Error Rate figure increased by 10 points. However the
Filemon capture window remained empty. How can a drive incur seek
errors if there are no file accesses? I would think that the SMART
data would be retrieved from the drive's RAM or flash EEPROM, so no
actual seeks would be required.
Eric Gisin
news:b3mkd3t5rsfskeujh...@4ax.com...
>
> I'm running Win98SE. While monitoring file accesses with Filemon (from
> SysInternals), I used Everest Home Edition (ver 2.20.405) to monitor
> the drive's SMART data. Every time I refreshed the SMART report (using
> F5), the Seek Error Rate figure increased by 10 points. However the
> Filemon capture window remained empty. How can a drive incur seek
> errors if there are no file accesses? I would think that the SMART
> data would be retrieved from the drive's RAM or flash EEPROM, so no
> actual seeks would be required.
>
Arno Wagner
> On 2 Sep 2007 05:29:04 GMT, Arno Wagner <m...@privacy.net> put finger to
> keyboard and composed:
>>Previously Franc Zabkar <fza...@iinternode.on.net> wrote:
>>> BTW, these are the SMART data for my Fujitsu 6GB drive:
>>> http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/6GB.RPT
>>
>>> Notice the raw value for "Power On Hours Count".
>>
>>> 0000008EF98Ah = 9369994 dec
>>> = 1069 years
>>
>>> In fact the figure appears to represent Power On Seconds.
>>
>>This is a non-standardized field, AFAIK. Bogus readings are
>>no surprise here.
>>
>>Arno
> I suspect that the figures aren't necessarily bogus, they may just
> need to be interpreted differently between manufacturers.
That is what I meant. The raw values ace accurate, but the interpreted
figures are ofteh wrong.
> That said, I
> haven't been able to find any detailed SMART documentation at any of
> the manufacturers' web sites.
SMART is part of the ATA spec. You can find specs on the t13 comitte
website here: http://www.t13.org/
Arno
Christian Franke
> Previously Franc Zabkar <...> wrote:
>> On 2 Sep 2007 05:29:04 GMT, Arno Wagner <m...@privacy.net> put finger to
>> keyboard and composed:
>
>
>>>> BTW, these are the SMART data for my Fujitsu 6GB drive:
>>>> http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/6GB.RPT
>>>> Notice the raw value for "Power On Hours Count".
>>>> 0000008EF98Ah = 9369994 dec
>>>> = 1069 years
>>>> In fact the figure appears to represent Power On Seconds.
Yes, the FUJITSU MPE3064AT Attribute 9 raw value counts seconds.
Other drives use hours, minutes or half minutes.
Some SMART tools handle these differences, most don't.
See info about Attribute 9 in http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net/#FAQ
>>> This is a non-standardized field, AFAIK. Bogus readings are
>>> no surprise here.
>>>
>>> Arno
>
>> I suspect that the figures aren't necessarily bogus, they may just
>> need to be interpreted differently between manufacturers.
>
> That is what I meant. The raw values ace accurate, but the interpreted
> figures are ofteh wrong.
>
>> That said, I
>> haven't been able to find any detailed SMART documentation at any of
>> the manufacturers' web sites.
>
> SMART is part of the ATA spec. You can find specs on the t13 comitte
> website here: http://www.t13.org/
>
Unlike SMART status, self-tests and logs, SMART attributes are *not*
standardized in ATA-3...8. Even the general data format isn't standardized.
Specific Attributes are only listed in a proposed informal annex for
ATA-8. But it is still not included in the draft.
See "ATA References" at http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net/#references
for links & comments.
Christian
Folkert Rienstra
Which obviously you didn't bother to consult.
>
> Arno
Folkert Rienstra
No it wasn't. Everybody else but the babblebot got it.
> Maybe I should have written that "the Current Pending Sector Count
> of 1 coincides with a sector that has been marked as bad by the OS".
Which would have gotten the same response from the babblebot.
>
> > A bad sector marked by the disk (and invisible to the OS) can
> > be counter as "reallocation event" or "reallocated sector count".
> > If these numbers start growing, something is seriously wrong.
>
> The numbers *are* growing. In fact they've grown from 34 to 119 in
> two years. I've been preparing to replace the drive for quite some
> time now. However, it's only in the last month or so that the drive has
> been making occasional noises, ie a very soft clink, probably from the
> voice coil positioner.
>
> > > I suspect that the drive's controller is aware that it is bad, but it
> > > cannot relocate it until such time as the OS writes to it, thereby sig-
> > > nalling that the data in that sector is no longer of any consequence.
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > FWIW, SeaTools Desktop v3.00 says the 13GB drive is OK, apart
> > > from one bad sector.
> > One bad sector is no reason for concern.
> > If they start to get more, that would be.
Utter nonsense as always from the babblebot.
Folkert Rienstra
> keyboard and composed:
>
> > Previously Franc Zabkar <fza...@iinternode.on.net> wrote:
>
> > > BTW, these are the SMART data for my Fujitsu 6GB drive:
> > > http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/6GB.RPT
> >
> > > Notice the raw value for "Power On Hours Count".
> >
> > > 0000008EF98Ah = 9369994 dec
> > > = 1069 years
> >
> > > In fact the figure appears to represent Power On Seconds.
> > This is a non-standardized field, AFAIK.
They all are, you babblebot moron.
> Bogus readings are no surprise here.
As is your babbling, babblebot.
> >
> > Arno
> I suspect that the figures aren't necessarily bogus,
It's the babblebot, it just babbles.
> they may just need to be interpreted differently between manufacturers.
Which is what 'Vendor specific' means.
Folkert Rienstra
> keyboard and composed:
>
> > Previously Franc Zabkar <fza...@iinternode.on.net> wrote:
> > > I'm trying to make sense of the SMART reports for my 13GB and 120GB
> > > Seagate hard drives. Both have very high numbers for the Raw Read
> > > Error Rate and Seek Error Rate.
> >
> > Raw read error is very hard to interpret and usually not
> > important anyways. Seek errors are usually a poer problem
> > or a vibration problem. They may also indicate a problem
> > with the disk.
> I'm running Win98SE. While monitoring file accesses with Filemon (from
> SysInternals), I used Everest Home Edition (ver 2.20.405) to monitor
> the drive's SMART data. Every time I refreshed the SMART report (using
> F5), the Seek Error Rate figure increased by 10 points. However the
> Filemon capture window remained empty. How can a drive incur seek
> errors if there are no file accesses?
What file access.
> I would think that the SMART data would be retrieved from the
> drive's RAM or flash EEPROM, so no actual seeks would be required.
Well, guess what.
>
> - Franc Zabkar
Folkert Rienstra
> > On 1 Sep 2007 07:29:59 GMT, Arno Wagner <m...@privacy.net> put finger to
> > keyboard and composed:
>
> > > Previously Franc Zabkar <fza...@iinternode.on.net> wrote:
> [...]
> > > > BTW, the Current Pending Sector Count of 1 reflects a sector that has
> > > > been marked as bad by the OS.
> > >
> > > Not quite. It represents a sector that the drive has given up on, but
> > > not yet been able to replace, because it was not written to it.
> > > The OS does not factor into this.
>
> > Sorry, my statement was ambiguous. Maybe I should have written that
> > "the Current Pending Sector Count of 1 coincides with a sector that
> > has been marked as bad by the OS".
>
> Ok.
>
> > > A bad sector marked by the disk (and invisible to the OS) can
> > > be counter as "reallocation event" or "reallocated sector
> > > count". If these numbers start growing, something is seriously
> > > wrong.
>
> > The numbers *are* growing. In fact they've grown from 34 to 119 in two
> > years. I've been preparing to replace the drive for quite some time now.
> > However, it's only in the last month or so that the drive has been making
> > tioner.
> Well. Personally I stop trustinf a disk around
> 10 or so, unless they all happened in one burst.
Which makes perfect sense if you are babblebot.
> I have had one Maxtor disk with something like 200 reallocated sectors in
> one event, which did run fine without any additional ones for three years
> afterwards.
Which obviously you only know by waiting for 3 years.
>
> So, it could be a problem with power (spikes, I would suspect), mecha-
> nical shock/vibration or the like. Or the disk could have a problem.
> I would replace that one.
And subject the new disk to the same problem causes. Very good, babblebot.
> Also, at some time the disk will run out of spare sectors.
At this rate somewhere in the next century which is very bad, eh babblebot.
>
> > > > I suspect that the drive's controller is
> > > > aware that it is bad, but it cannot relocate it until such time as the
> > > > OS writes to it, thereby signalling that the data in that sector is no
> > > > longer of any consequence.
> > >
> > > Yes.
> > >
> > > > FWIW, SeaTools Desktop v3.00 says the 13GB drive is OK, apart from one
> > > > bad sector.
> > >
> > > One bad sector is no reason for concern. If they start to get more,
> > > that would be.
> > >
> > > Arno
>
> > I now have a batch file that runs just prior to shutdown. Among other
> > things, it captures SMART data and appends it to a log file. It'll be in-
> > teresting to monitor the drive as it progresses toward total failure. :-)
>
> > BTW, these are the SMART data for my Fujitsu 6GB drive:
> > http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/6GB.RPT
>
> > Notice the raw value for "Power On Hours Count".
>
> > 0000008EF98Ah = 9369994 dec
> > = 1069 years
>
> > In fact the figure appears to represent Power On Seconds.
> This is a non-standardized field, AFAIK.
Little you know. They all are, babblebot.
> Bogus readings are no surprise here.
As is your response.
>
> Arno
Franc Zabkar
put finger to keyboard and composed:
>"Franc Zabkar" <fza...@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message
Understood, and that's essentially what I wrote. I merely used Filemon
to confirm that Everest wasn't doing something else as well. So the
question remains, why does SMART diagnostic I/O cause the Seek Error
Rate figure to change?
Folkert Rienstra
> > "Franc Zabkar" fza...@iinternode.on.net> wrote in message news:b3mkd3t5rsfskeujh...@4ax.com...
> > >
> > > I'm running Win98SE. While monitoring file accesses with Filemon (from
> > > SysInternals), I used Everest Home Edition (ver 2.20.405) to monitor
> > > the drive's SMART data. Every time I refreshed the SMART report (using
> > > F5), the Seek Error Rate figure increased by 10 points. However the
> > > Filemon capture window remained empty. How can a drive incur seek
> > > errors if there are no file accesses? I would think that the SMART
> > > data would be retrieved from the drive's RAM or flash EEPROM, so no
> > > actual seeks would be required.
> > >
> > SMART diagnostic I/O does not show up as Windows I/O.
> Understood,
No, not really.
> and that's essentially what I wrote.
No, you didn't.
> I merely used Filemon to confirm that Everest wasn't doing something
> else as well.
Like File IO maybe?
> So the question remains, why does SMART diagnostic I/O cause the
> Seek Error Rate figure to change?
Maybe because it does "SMART diagnostic I/O" ?
Just a calculated guess. What do you think.
>
> - Franc Zabkar
Franc Zabkar
<Christia...@t-online.de> put finger to keyboard and composed:
Thanks for that. I'd been looking for SFF-8035 without success.
BTW, Seagate's docs weren't very useful at all. :-(
Franc Zabkar
<see_re...@myweb.nl> put finger to keyboard and composed:
I think you are a putrefying dog turd that should go into my kill
file.
Arno Wagner
Aha. Interesting! That explains the mess some attributes are.
Arno
Christian Franke
> ...
>>> I'm running Win98SE. ...
>>>
>> SMART diagnostic I/O does not show up as Windows I/O.
>
> Understood, and that's essentially what I wrote. I merely used Filemon
> to confirm that Everest wasn't doing something else as well. So the
> question remains, why does SMART diagnostic I/O cause the Seek Error
> Rate figure to change?
>
Any attribute may be updated during a "Auto Offline Data Collection".
This is intended to update the SMART attributes marked "Offline".
There is more detailed info in the smartctl man page.
See the description of the "--offlineauto" option at:
http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net/man/smartctl.8.html
(BTW: this tool works also on Win9x/ME if driver provides smartvsd.vxd)
Christian
Franc Zabkar
<Christia...@t-online.de> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>Franc Zabkar wrote:
>> ...
>>>> I'm running Win98SE. ...
>>>>
>>> SMART diagnostic I/O does not show up as Windows I/O.
>>
>> Understood, and that's essentially what I wrote. I merely used Filemon
>> to confirm that Everest wasn't doing something else as well. So the
>> question remains, why does SMART diagnostic I/O cause the Seek Error
>> Rate figure to change?
>>
>
>Any attribute may be updated during a "Auto Offline Data Collection".
>This is intended to update the SMART attributes marked "Offline".
OK, but why does the Seek Error Rate increase by 10 points when this
happens, if indeed that is what is happening? SmartUDM indicates that
SMART error logging is not supported, nor is SMART self-test, so I
can't see why the drive would be accessing the platters. Wouldn't the
SMART data be written to RAM or flash? In any case it seems to me that
the Seek Error Rate parameter is more like a count than a rate.
I have also verified that the Seek Error Rate figure increases by 10
in real DOS mode when using SmartUDM. Smartdrv is caching the disc
when I do this.
>There is more detailed info in the smartctl man page.
>See the description of the "--offlineauto" option at:
>http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net/man/smartctl.8.html
>(BTW: this tool works also on Win9x/ME if driver provides smartvsd.vxd)
>
>Christian
I can't get Smartctl to run on my Win98SE box. Everest Home Edition
(Windows) has no problem, nor does SmartUDM (DOS). SMART is enabled in
the BIOS setup.
=====================================================================
smartctl -s on -a hda
smartctl version 5.37 [i686-mingw32-98] Copyright (C) 2002-6 Bruce
Allen
Home page is http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net/
=== START OF INFORMATION SECTION ===
Model Family: Seagate U8 family
Device Model: ST313021A
Serial Number: 6CT0C4JE
Firmware Version: 3.03
User Capacity: 13,022,324,736 bytes
Device is: In smartctl database [for details use: -P show]
ATA Version is: 5
ATA Standard is: Exact ATA specification draft version not indicated
Local Time is: Tue Sep 04 13:50:44 2007 AUSEST
SMART support is: Available - device has SMART capability.
SMART support is: Enabled
=== START OF ENABLE/DISABLE COMMANDS SECTION ===
SMART Enabled.
SMART Disabled. Use option -s with argument 'on' to enable it.
Press any key to continue . . .
=====================================================================
smartctl -c hda
smartctl version 5.37 [i686-mingw32-98] Copyright (C) 2002-6 Bruce
Allen
Home page is http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net/
SMART Disabled. Use option -s with argument 'on' to enable it.
Press any key to continue . . .
=====================================================================
Christian Franke
> On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 21:06:25 +0200, Christian Franke
>>> ...
>>>
>> Any attribute may be updated during a "Auto Offline Data Collection".
>> This is intended to update the SMART attributes marked "Offline".
>
> OK, but why does the Seek Error Rate increase by 10 points when this
> happens, if indeed that is what is happening? SmartUDM indicates that
> SMART error logging is not supported, nor is SMART self-test, so I
> can't see why the drive would be accessing the platters.
"Offline Data Collection" is different from self-test and should be
supported by a drive with "offline" attributes.
> Wouldn't the SMART data be written to RAM or flash?
Probably to disk platter itself;-)
> In any case it seems to me that
> the Seek Error Rate parameter is more like a count than a rate.
>
Sounds reasonable.
> ...
> I can't get Smartctl to run on my Win98SE box. Everest Home Edition
> (Windows) has no problem, nor does SmartUDM (DOS). SMART is enabled in
> the BIOS setup.
>
> =====================================================================
> smartctl -s on -a hda
> smartctl version 5.37 [i686-mingw32-98] Copyright (C) 2002-6 Bruce
> Allen
> Home page is http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net/
>
> === START OF INFORMATION SECTION ===
> Model Family: Seagate U8 family
> Device Model: ST313021A
> Serial Number: 6CT0C4JE
> Firmware Version: 3.03
> User Capacity: 13,022,324,736 bytes
> Device is: In smartctl database [for details use: -P show]
> ATA Version is: 5
> ATA Standard is: Exact ATA specification draft version not indicated
> Local Time is: Tue Sep 04 13:50:44 2007 AUSEST
> SMART support is: Available - device has SMART capability.
> SMART support is: Enabled
>
> === START OF ENABLE/DISABLE COMMANDS SECTION ===
> SMART Enabled.
> SMART Disabled. Use option -s with argument 'on' to enable it.
Driver supports SMART, IDENTIFY works and reports SMART enabled, but
apparently SMART STATUS command returns an unexpected error.
The command "smartctl -r ioctl,2 -a hda" prints debug output including
I/O control parameters and return values.
Christian
Franc Zabkar
<Christia...@t-online.de> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>Franc Zabkar wrote:
>> On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 21:06:25 +0200, Christian Franke
>> <...> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>> Any attribute may be updated during a "Auto Offline Data Collection".
>>> This is intended to update the SMART attributes marked "Offline".
>>
>> OK, but why does the Seek Error Rate increase by 10 points when this
>> happens, if indeed that is what is happening? SmartUDM indicates that
>> SMART error logging is not supported, nor is SMART self-test, so I
>> can't see why the drive would be accessing the platters.
>
>"Offline Data Collection" is different from self-test and should be
>supported by a drive with "offline" attributes.
>
>
> > Wouldn't the SMART data be written to RAM or flash?
>
>Probably to disk platter itself;-)
I'm assuming that the Identify Drive command retrieves data from solid
state memory and does not entail any seeking. If true, then an
Identify command should not cause any seek statistic to change.
To test this, I dropped back to real DOS, enabled Smartdrv disc
caching, and executed the following sequence of commands:
find-ata p m
smartudm
smartudm
find-ata p m
smartudm
Find-ATA is an old Seagate utility:
http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/IDE-identify/FIND-ATA.EXE
The result of the above test was an increase in the Seek Error Rate by
10 points.
I then executed the following:
smartudm
find-ata p m
find-ata p m
...
find-ata p m
smartudm
After 10 repetitions of the Identify command, the Seek Error Rate
still only increased by 10. This would tend to support the idea that
the Seek Error Rate is a genuine seek statistic of some kind, and that
SMART data may be stored on the platters. Having said that, I recall
reading recently that a firmware upgrade clears the SMART data, at
least on some brands of HD. This would suggest that such data are
stored in flash.
>> In any case it seems to me that
>> the Seek Error Rate parameter is more like a count than a rate.
>>
>
>Sounds reasonable.
>
>
>> ...
>> I can't get Smartctl to run on my Win98SE box. Everest Home Edition
>> (Windows) has no problem, nor does SmartUDM (DOS). SMART is enabled in
>> the BIOS setup.
>>
>> =====================================================================
>> smartctl -s on -a hda
...
>> === START OF INFORMATION SECTION ===
>> Model Family: Seagate U8 family
>> Device Model: ST313021A
...
>> SMART support is: Available - device has SMART capability.
>> SMART support is: Enabled
>>
>> === START OF ENABLE/DISABLE COMMANDS SECTION ===
>> SMART Enabled.
>> SMART Disabled. Use option -s with argument 'on' to enable it.
>
>Driver supports SMART, IDENTIFY works and reports SMART enabled, but
>apparently SMART STATUS command returns an unexpected error.
>The command "smartctl -r ioctl,2 -a hda" prints debug output including
>I/O control parameters and return values.
>
>Christian
Here is the output:
http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/Smartctl/smart_debug.txt
Folkert Rienstra
maxmillan
wrote:
>>
>>Like File IO maybe?
>>
>>> So the question remains, why does SMART diagnostic I/O cause the
>>
>>> Seek Error Rate figure to change?
>>
>>Maybe because it does "SMART diagnostic I/O" ?
>>Just a calculated guess. What do you think.
>
> I think you are a putrefying dog turd that should go into my kill
> file.
>
> - Franc Zabkar
> --
Rienstra is just some two-bit dutch patent officer who used to work in
this field who no longer works in this field.
Not that the native dutch were famous for this sort of thing anyway.
Franc Zabkar
>Franc Zabkar wrote:
> > Wouldn't the SMART data be written to RAM or flash?
>
>Probably to disk platter itself;-)
Running SmartUDM on my 120GB Seagate HD causes its Seek Error Rate
statistic to increase by 8 rather than 10. The 120GB drive supports
error logging and self test whereas the 13GB drive does not. This
would suggest that it is the drive's internal activity that is causing
this figure to rise rather than the software.
As my 120GB drive is relatively new, and has no reallocated sectors,
it seems to me that the Seek Error Rate:
(1) is not a rate but a count.
(2) does not count errors.
(3) may represent a cumulative seek count.
If (3), then ...
SER / Power On Seconds = 238390167 / 9981 / 3600
= 6.6 seeks / second
If the average seek time is ~10ms, then the drive would be capable of
100 seeks/sec. Does this result support the idea that SER is a
cumulative seek count? I'm not sure, but in any case, even if it does,
it shouldn't really play a part in determining the error rate. AFAICS,
one should be measuring the rolling average seek error rate, ie the
number of errors in the last 100 or 1000 seeks.
As for why SMART diagnostic I/O results in 8 or 10 seeks, if indeed it
does, I'm guessing that SMART data may be written to 8 or 10 redundant
cylinders, probably at the outer, middle, and inner areas of the disc
???
Franc Zabkar
finger to keyboard and composed:
>On Mon 03 Sep 2007 07:20:48, Franc Zabkar <fza...@iinternode.on.net>
>wrote:
>
>>>
>>>Like File IO maybe?
>>>
>>>> So the question remains, why does SMART diagnostic I/O cause the
>>>
>>>> Seek Error Rate figure to change?
>>>
>>>Maybe because it does "SMART diagnostic I/O" ?
>>>Just a calculated guess. What do you think.
>>
>> I think you are a putrefying dog turd that should go into my kill
>> file.
>>
>> - Franc Zabkar
>> --
>
>
>Rienstra is just some two-bit dutch patent officer who used to work in
>this field who no longer works in this field.
A desk jockey. I could have guessed.
Folkert Rienstra
>
> > Franc Zabkar wrote:
>
> > > Wouldn't the SMART data be written to RAM or flash?
> >
> > Probably to disk platter itself;-)
>
> Running SmartUDM on my 120GB Seagate HD causes its Seek Error Rate
> statistic to increase by 8 rather than 10. The 120GB drive supports
> error logging and self test whereas the 13GB drive does not. This
> would suggest that it is the drive's internal activity that is causing
> this figure to rise rather than the software.
Congratulations. You finally figured out what "SMART diagnostic I/O" is.
And you know what, it only took you 3 days to do it.
Must be a new australian record.
[rest of bullshit flushed]
Christian Franke
> On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 21:50:41 +0200, Christian Franke
>>> ...
>>>
>>> === START OF ENABLE/DISABLE COMMANDS SECTION ===
>>> SMART Enabled.
>>> SMART Disabled. Use option -s with argument 'on' to enable it.
>> Driver supports SMART, IDENTIFY works and reports SMART enabled, but
>> apparently SMART STATUS command returns an unexpected error.
>> The command "smartctl -r ioctl,2 -a hda" prints debug output including
>> I/O control parameters and return values.
>>
>> Christian
>
> Here is the output:
> http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/Smartctl/smart_debug.txt
>
Thanks for the info.
SMART STATUS returns function not implemented. Probably a driver issue.
smartctl does not continue if this function fails.
Christian
Franc Zabkar
<Christia...@t-online.de> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>Franc Zabkar wrote:
>> On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 21:50:41 +0200, Christian Franke
>> <...> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>>>> ...
>>>> SMART support is: Enabled
>>>>
>>>> === START OF ENABLE/DISABLE COMMANDS SECTION ===
>>>> SMART Enabled.
>>>> SMART Disabled. Use option -s with argument 'on' to enable it.
>>> Driver supports SMART, IDENTIFY works and reports SMART enabled, but
>>> apparently SMART STATUS command returns an unexpected error.
>>> The command "smartctl -r ioctl,2 -a hda" prints debug output including
>>> I/O control parameters and return values.
>>>
>>> Christian
>>
>> Here is the output:
>> http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/Smartctl/smart_debug.txt
>>
>
>Thanks for the info.
>SMART STATUS returns function not implemented.
According to section 3.1.4 of Seagate's U8 Product Manual, the
"S.M.A.R.T. Return Status" command is implemented for this drive:
http://www.seagate.com/support/disc/manuals/ata/u8pmb.pdf
>Probably a driver issue.
If I have read the SMART specs correctly, the Return Status command is
a mandatory component of the SMART feature set. Therefore wouldn't it
be odd if MS omitted this function from its smartvsd driver?
>smartctl does not continue if this function fails.
>
>Christian
Could you please indulge me by helping me understand the error report?
I believe the Input line defines the command, features register,
sector number, sector count, cyl low, cyl high for the Return Status
subcommand (0xDA).
But I don't understand the "errno=40". Does this reflect the Status or
Error registers, or is it internal to the program? AIUI, the Status
register should be set to 0x40 if there is no error, otherwise the
Error register should be set to 0x04 "if the device does not support
this command, or if SMART is disabled".
===================================================================
REPORT-IOCTL: DeviceFD=0 Command=SMART STATUS
SMART_SEND_DRIVE_COMMAND failed, Error=1
Input : CMD=0xb0, FR=0xda, SC=0x00, NS=0x00, CL=0x4f, CH=0xc2,
SEL=0x00
REPORT-IOCTL: DeviceFD=0 Command=SMART STATUS returned -1 errno=40
[Function not implemented]
===================================================================
Christian Franke
> On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 22:10:35 +0200, Christian Franke
>>> ...
>> SMART STATUS returns function not implemented.
>
> According to section 3.1.4 of Seagate's U8 Product Manual, the
> "S.M.A.R.T. Return Status" command is implemented for this drive:
>
> http://www.seagate.com/support/disc/manuals/ata/u8pmb.pdf
>
>> Probably a driver issue.
>
> If I have read the SMART specs correctly, the Return Status command is
> a mandatory component of the SMART feature set. Therefore wouldn't it
> be odd if MS omitted this function from its smartvsd driver?
>
It is implemented in smartvsd.vxd and worked at least on Win98SE with
esdi_506.pdr and smartvsd.vxd from 1999-04-23, MD5:
7e98fae3d43769bcc0ecc0cdc93b7fdd esdi_506.pdr
7809459e198163c9f5b65a728367a65d smartvsd.vxd
Possible issues:
- smartvsd.vxd detects the drive as not fully supporting SMART. AFIAK,
ERROR_INVALID_FUNCTION (1) is returned for all functions except IDENTIFY
regardless whether the real ATA function actually works.
- A third party ATA driver is used.
- There is a bug in the Win9X code of recent smartmontools releases. The
very first smartctl windows release 5.29 from 2004 was actually
developed on 98SE, but I no longer do any regression testing on 9x/ME.
(All releases are still available at sourceforge. If an older release
works, please tell me!)
- The Win98SE has been upgraded from a previous Windows release. It is a
known issue that Windows setup does not reliably install/upgrade
smartvxd.vxd. See smartmontools INSTALL file for details.
> ...
> Could you please indulge me by helping me understand the error report?
>
> I believe the Input line defines the command, features register,
> sector number, sector count, cyl low, cyl high for the Return Status
> subcommand (0xDA).
>
Yes.
> But I don't understand the "errno=40". Does this reflect the Status or
> Error registers, or is it internal to the program? AIUI, the Status
> register should be set to 0x40 if there is no error, otherwise the
> Error register should be set to 0x04 "if the device does not support
> this command, or if SMART is disabled".
>
> ===================================================================
> REPORT-IOCTL: DeviceFD=0 Command=SMART STATUS
> SMART_SEND_DRIVE_COMMAND failed, Error=1
> Input : CMD=0xb0, FR=0xda, SC=0x00, NS=0x00, CL=0x4f, CH=0xc2,
> SEL=0x00
> REPORT-IOCTL: DeviceFD=0 Command=SMART STATUS returned -1 errno=40
> [Function not implemented]
> ===================================================================
>
The DeviceIoControl() call returns Error 1 (GetLastError() ==
ERROR_INVALID_FUNCTION). It does not return any ATA registers in this
case. There is no evidence whether the actual ATA command was executed
or not.
Smartmontools is a portable app (8 Platforms) with Linux roots,
therefore the error code is mapped to more general (C89, POSIX) form
errno = ENOSYS (40).
Christian
Franc Zabkar
<Christia...@t-online.de> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>Franc Zabkar wrote:
>> On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 22:10:35 +0200, Christian Franke
>> <...> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>>> Probably a driver issue.
>>
>> If I have read the SMART specs correctly, the Return Status command is
>> a mandatory component of the SMART feature set. Therefore wouldn't it
>> be odd if MS omitted this function from its smartvsd driver?
>>
>It is implemented in smartvsd.vxd and worked at least on Win98SE with
>esdi_506.pdr and smartvsd.vxd from 1999-04-23, MD5:
>7e98fae3d43769bcc0ecc0cdc93b7fdd esdi_506.pdr
>7809459e198163c9f5b65a728367a65d smartvsd.vxd
I'm using the 1999-04-23 versions of both drivers.
>Possible issues:
>
>- smartvsd.vxd detects the drive as not fully supporting SMART. AFIAK,
>ERROR_INVALID_FUNCTION (1) is returned for all functions except IDENTIFY
>regardless whether the real ATA function actually works.
>
>- A third party ATA driver is used.
No.
>- There is a bug in the Win9X code of recent smartmontools releases. The
>very first smartctl windows release 5.29 from 2004 was actually
>developed on 98SE, but I no longer do any regression testing on 9x/ME.
>(All releases are still available at sourceforge. If an older release
>works, please tell me!)
Version 5.37 appears to have a bug.
Version 5.30 works OK, although I thought I was downloading version
5.29:
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=64297&package_id=61413&release_id=219247
Here is the output:
http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/Smartctl/13gb.log
Thanks for your help.
Christian Franke
> On Sat, 08 Sep 2007 18:41:25 +0200, Christian Franke
>> - There is a bug in the Win9X code of recent smartmontools releases. The
>> very first smartctl windows release 5.29 from 2004 was actually
>> developed on 98SE, but I no longer do any regression testing on 9x/ME.
>> (All releases are still available at sourceforge. If an older release
>> works, please tell me!)
>
> Version 5.37 appears to have a bug.
>
> Version 5.30 works OK, although I thought I was downloading version
> 5.29:
> http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=64297&package_id=61413&release_id=219247
>
> Here is the output:
> http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/Smartctl/13gb.log
>
There is actually a regression that was introduced when 3ware RAID
support was added. I will fix this.
Release 5.36 and the 5.37 test release 5.37-0-20060720 should work on
9x/ME. See http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net/#WindowsInstall for a
download link for test releases.
> Thanks for your help.
Thanks for the bug report.
Christian
Franc Zabkar
<Christia...@t-online.de> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>There is actually a regression that was introduced when 3ware RAID
>support was added. I will fix this.
>
>Release 5.36 and the 5.37 test release 5.37-0-20060720 should work on
>9x/ME. See http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net/#WindowsInstall for a
>download link for test releases.
Yes, 5.37.0 works.