Barracuda ST31000528AS problem
Piotr Szymański
I have two Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 1 TB (ST31000528AS) drives in a
Linux software RAID-1 configuration. Today I've got a notification from
smartd that one of the drives (sda) is failing:
Device: /dev/sda, ATA error count increased from 0 to 6
Some other log messages (like: "ata1.00: cmd ... Emask 0x409 (media
error)", "end_request: I/O error, dev sda, sector 39072000") and the
disk's SMART error log seem to confirm that the disk is dying. My
problem is that I'm seeing SMART warnings about the other drive too:
smartd[5845]: Device: /dev/sdb, SMART Prefailure Attribute: 1
Raw_Read_Error_Rate changed from 108 to 117
Below is the listing of SMART attributes for the good drive (smartctl -A
/dev/sdb):
=== START OF READ SMART DATA SECTION ===
SMART Attributes Data Structure revision number: 10
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 113 099 006 Pre-fail
Always - 52634145
3 Spin_Up_Time 0x0003 095 095 000 Pre-fail
Always - 0
4 Start_Stop_Count 0x0032 100 100 020 Old_age
Always - 56
5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct 0x0033 100 100 036 Pre-fail
Always - 24
7 Seek_Error_Rate 0x000f 075 060 030 Pre-fail
Always - 35530576
9 Power_On_Hours 0x0032 096 096 000 Old_age
Always - 3861
10 Spin_Retry_Count 0x0013 100 100 097 Pre-fail
Always - 0
12 Power_Cycle_Count 0x0032 100 100 020 Old_age
Always - 56
183 Unknown_Attribute 0x0000 100 100 000 Old_age
Offline - 0
184 Unknown_Attribute 0x0032 100 100 099 Old_age Always
- 0
187 Reported_Uncorrect 0x0032 100 100 000 Old_age Always
- 0
188 Unknown_Attribute 0x0032 100 099 000 Old_age Always
- 1
189 High_Fly_Writes 0x003a 099 099 000 Old_age Always
- 1
190 Airflow_Temperature_Cel 0x0022 067 059 045 Old_age Always
- 33 (Lifetime Min/Max 32/41)
194 Temperature_Celsius 0x0022 033 041 000 Old_age Always
- 33 (0 19 0 0)
195 Hardware_ECC_Recovered 0x001a 036 015 000 Old_age Always
- 52634145
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
240 Head_Flying_Hours 0x0000 100 253 000 Old_age
Offline - 91955249811373
241 Unknown_Attribute 0x0000 100 253 000 Old_age
Offline - 1261294398
242 Unknown_Attribute 0x0000 100 253 000 Old_age
Offline - 1519044357
And here is the listing for the bad drive:
=== START OF READ SMART DATA SECTION ===
SMART Attributes Data Structure revision number: 10
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 109 100 006 Pre-fail
Always - 23028010
3 Spin_Up_Time 0x0003 095 095 000 Pre-fail
Always - 0
4 Start_Stop_Count 0x0032 100 100 020 Old_age
Always - 59
5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct 0x0033 100 100 036 Pre-fail
Always - 17
7 Seek_Error_Rate 0x000f 078 060 030 Pre-fail
Always - 81078197
9 Power_On_Hours 0x0032 096 096 000 Old_age
Always - 3861
10 Spin_Retry_Count 0x0013 100 100 097 Pre-fail
Always - 0
12 Power_Cycle_Count 0x0032 100 100 020 Old_age
Always - 59
183 Unknown_Attribute 0x0000 100 100 000 Old_age
Offline - 0
184 Unknown_Attribute 0x0032 100 100 099 Old_age Always
- 0
187 Reported_Uncorrect 0x0032 094 094 000 Old_age Always
- 6
188 Unknown_Attribute 0x0032 100 096 000 Old_age Always
- 26
189 High_Fly_Writes 0x003a 100 100 000 Old_age Always
- 0
190 Airflow_Temperature_Cel 0x0022 070 062 045 Old_age Always
- 30 (Lifetime Min/Max 29/38)
194 Temperature_Celsius 0x0022 030 040 000 Old_age Always
- 30 (0 19 0 0)
195 Hardware_ECC_Recovered 0x001a 041 022 000 Old_age Always
- 23028010
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
240 Head_Flying_Hours 0x0000 100 253 000 Old_age
Offline - 82240033787773
241 Unknown_Attribute 0x0000 100 253 000 Old_age
Offline - 2371531202
242 Unknown_Attribute 0x0000 100 253 000 Old_age
Offline - 3348144171
Both have a nonzero Reallocated_Sector_Ct and Seek_Error_Rate.
I cannot run an extended SMART test on the drive as due to some firmware
problem it doesn't move past 10% completion.
Do you think the other drive is failing also?
Thanks!
--
Peter Szyma�ski <szyman(at)magres.net>
philo
Replace the drive at once!
Do not fool with it any more
Just because one drive is bad...it does not necessarily mean the other
one is bad too
root
> Hi All,
>
> I have two Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 1 TB (ST31000528AS) drives in a
> Linux software RAID-1 configuration. Today I've got a notification from
> smartd that one of the drives (sda) is failing:
>
I had two of the 1Tb drives fail within a week of purchase.
Send them back to Seagate for replacement. When you call
Seagate they will warn you that they may reject your drive
if you don't pack it correctly. I simply packed the first
drive in the original box and returned it. They took it
and returned the drive in a big box with lots of foam around
the drive. I returned the second drive in the box they
sent. Since then I have had no problems with the replacement
drives. Something rotten about the first 1Tb drives.
PS if you opt for them to send you a drive before they
get your drive you will get hit with a $25 shipping charge.
The UPS shipping for one drive is about $9.
philo
It may be hard to warranty a drive that has not yet failed...
unless there's a known manufacturing defect...
but worth checking into
Joe
> root wrote:
Not at all. Warranty covers SMART failures on every drive I've dealt
with...
--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X
philo
Correct. a SMART error certainly qualifies for a warranty replacement
but the OP said that *one* of his two drives has an error...
not sure how one would be able to warranty a drive that exhibits no
errors...unless the mfg has a known manufacturing problem with a certain
batch of drives
Joe
No, he said he is seeing SMART warnings about the second drive, as
well.
philo
Time to get them both replaced for sure!
Pascal Hambourg
Joe a ï¿œcrit :
>
> No, he said he is seeing SMART warnings about the second drive, as
> well.
Do you mean this ?
> smartd[5845]: Device: /dev/sdb, SMART Prefailure Attribute: 1
> Raw_Read_Error_Rate changed from 108 to 117
This is just a SMART attribute change notification. As long as the
values remain above the threshold, there is no "SMART failure". Besides,
the higher the better, so 108 to 117 means the disk got better.
Joe
> Hello,
>
> Joe a écrit :
>>
>> No, he said he is seeing SMART warnings about the second drive, as
>> well.
>
> Do you mean this ?
>
>> smartd[5845]: Device: /dev/sdb, SMART Prefailure Attribute: 1
>> Raw_Read_Error_Rate changed from 108 to 117
No...
>
> This is just a SMART attribute change notification. As long as the
> values remain above the threshold, there is no "SMART failure". Besides,
> the higher the better, so 108 to 117 means the disk got better.
More along the lines of everything else he said:
My problem is that I'm seeing SMART warnings about the other drive
too:
A number of these values are above their thresholds, and while the
drive is probably not pending imminent failure, I'd certainly get it
replaced once the really bad drive is taken care of.
Pascal Hambourg
>
> My problem is that I'm seeing SMART warnings about the other drive
> too:
>
> Below is the listing of SMART attributes for the good drive (smartctl
> -A /dev/sdb):
> A number of these values are above their thresholds
AFAICS, all attribute values are above their thresholds, which is fine,
and nothing here indicates an imminent failure.
There are just a few relocated sectors, which could be worrying. But
there are no pending sectors, which would have meant that some "weak"
sectors could not be relocated before they actually became unreadable,
causing data loss. I would just check that the relocated sector count
does not increase too fast over time.
Chris Cox
> Hi All,
>
> I have two Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 1 TB (ST31000528AS) drives in a
> Linux software RAID-1 configuration. Today I've got a notification from
> smartd that one of the drives (sda) is failing:
:-)
Well, IMHO, it's because it's a Seagate. Ever since Seagate
purchased Maxtor, the quality has gone WAY downhill.
With that said, you might want to investigate flashing
the drive firmware. But IMHO, you'll be better off with
a WD drive or even a Hitachi drive today.
YMMV.
jellybean stonerfish
> On Sun, 2009-11-01 at 14:50 +0100, Piotr Szymański wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I have two Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 1 TB (ST31000528AS) drives in a
>> Linux software RAID-1 configuration. Today I've got a notification from
>> smartd that one of the drives (sda) is failing:
>
> :-)
>
> Well, IMHO, it's because it's a Seagate.
I will second that. I have a 500gb barracuda next to me that died
after only a year or two. It was undetectable by linux and windows.
So now I get a new ultra-strength refrigerator magnet.
Wanna-Be Sys Admin
Ironic, I found Maxtor to such and always used WD and Seagate, but after
I had a bunch of WD's fail (I mean, far too many to ever give me hope
they are worth trying ever again), I switched to Seagate. I had a few
fail, which was unusual. I'm using Seagate now, because out of Maxtor,
WD and Seagate, I still trust them more. I've not had a failure since,
but I have 4 redundant backups in full preparation that they will fail.
I personally think that when they bought Maxtor, that they used the
Maxtor designers and quality (inferior) on the "used to be better"
Seagate team, and that's why both suck now. But, that's my opinion and
theory, I've never looked into it. I just don't trust any drive
manufacturer. I used to use Hitachi, but had issues with them as well.
Fujitsu is the only brand I ever had not a single problem with, but I
don't recall if they went out of business or if they were just too much
money (really, not too much if they don't fail), but I pretty much
don't trust any brand anymore. Everyone's had inexcusable experiences
with all brands and models, and maybe it was a heating issue, or maybe
they were just unlucky. Eventually, no matter the drive brand or
model, everyone's going to be unlucky. All I can say is, at this
point, the only brand I'll avoid indefinitely, based on my experience,
is Western Digital. I'll use Maxtor before I use WD's again. I'll use
Seagate before I use WD, and I might otherwise have to start looking
into it again if I have these fail (but 3 years on 16 of the same
brand/model Seagate SATA II drives and I'm still very happy (for now)).
--
Not really a wanna-be, but I don't know everything.
Baho Utot
Second the Hitachi, no error even after 8413 hours of continuous use!
SMART Attributes Data Structure revision number: 16
Vendor Specific SMART Attributes with Thresholds:
ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE UPDATED
WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE
1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 0x000b 100 100 016 Pre-fail
Always - 0
2 Throughput_Performance 0x0005 128 128 054 Pre-fail
Offline - 164
3 Spin_Up_Time 0x0007 115 115 024 Pre-fail
Always - 333 (Average 333)
4 Start_Stop_Count 0x0012 100 100 000 Old_age
Always - 33
5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct 0x0033 100 100 005 Pre-fail
Always - 0
7 Seek_Error_Rate 0x000b 100 100 067 Pre-fail
Always - 0
8 Seek_Time_Performance 0x0005 100 100 020 Pre-fail
Offline - 288
9 Power_On_Hours 0x0012 099 099 000 Old_age
Always - 8413
10 Spin_Retry_Count 0x0013 100 100 060 Pre-fail
Always - 0
12 Power_Cycle_Count 0x0032 100 100 000 Old_age
Always - 33
192 Power-Off_Retract_Count 0x0032 100 100 000 Old_age
Always - 115
193 Load_Cycle_Count 0x0012 100 100 000 Old_age
Always - 115
194 Temperature_Celsius 0x0002 181 181 000 Old_age
Always - 33 (Lifetime Min/Max 18/48)
196 Reallocated_Event_Count 0x0032 100 100 000 Old_age
Always - 0
197 Current_Pending_Sector 0x0022 100 100 000 Old_age
Always - 0
198 Offline_Uncorrectable 0x0008 100 100 000 Old_age
Offline - 0
199 UDMA_CRC_Error_Count 0x000a 200 200 000 Old_age
Always - 0
SMART Error Log Version: 1
No Errors Logged
CF
If the Hitachi drives have improved since the "IBM DeskStar" days! Had two
of them out in two IBM desktops. I have never bought one since.
CF
I just went through that game with them: repacking in the original box. I
had already gotten rid of the foam, and had to custom cut some floral
styrofoam to exactly fit the drive, they accepted that. Am keeping the foam
this time.
Chris Cox
> Chris Cox wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 2009-11-01 at 14:50 +0100, Piotr Szymański wrote:
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> I have two Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 1 TB (ST31000528AS) drives in a
> >> Linux software RAID-1 configuration. Today I've got a notification
> >> from smartd that one of the drives (sda) is failing:
> >
> > :-)
> >
> > Well, IMHO, it's because it's a Seagate. Ever since Seagate
> > purchased Maxtor, the quality has gone WAY downhill.
> >
> > With that said, you might want to investigate flashing
> > the drive firmware. But IMHO, you'll be better off with
> > a WD drive or even a Hitachi drive today.
> >
> > YMMV.
>
> Ironic, I found Maxtor to such and always used WD and Seagate, but after
> I had a bunch of WD's fail (I mean, far too many to ever give me hope
> they are worth trying ever again), I switched to Seagate. I had a few
It is VERY much a time to time, generational thing to evaluate.
But right now, I find the WD's and the Hitachi's to be pretty good.
Obviously, as it does, that opinion will change from generation
to generation.
WD had their really bad drive back in the 90's (1.6G I believe) that
cause a lot of grief. Much like the IBM Deskstar's did, but that
changed with Hitachi.
I have 16 x 160G PATA WD's back when they first came out in a
large DAS RAID unit... and, believe it or not, we've not lost a single
one.
YMMV of course.
My home SAN consists of 8 x 1TB WD Blacks... now.. that's WAY too
early on to make a definitive statement, but I do know that I have
had Seagates that are even newer start dying in me. Sure... you
can get them replaced... but what a pain!!
We have a 21TB SAN that uses 42 x 500G SATA Hitachi's in it. Over the
past 5 years, we've had two of those go bad. So... not a perfect
track record.
Our 42TB SAN uses 42 x 1TB 1st gen SATA Hitachi's and it's been
in use for almost 3 years... never have lost a drive.
One problem is that everyone wants to know what to buy TODAY... but
you really can't give much of a long term assessment about drives
that are still what one would buy today... a problem with technology
in general.
With that said, I find dead new Seagates all over the place.... so
I stand beside my Segate == Maxtor == junk statement for now.
Wanna-Be Sys Admin
> It is VERY much a time to time, generational thing to evaluate.
>
Well, that's pretty much it. All brands and models seem to have a bad
run at some point, and some cover several of a brand's models. It's
always a risk and the same model might not work as well for someone
else. I know that I had a massive number of WD's fail over the last 8
years or so, and it was just enough for me. But, I've had most any
brand and model fail sooner than it should have. All companies have
bad runs, so I try and remove that risk until they've been out and
tested for a while (so I don't get the newest, largest models),
especially since 6 months down the road they'll be 1/2 the price
anyway. FYI, my WD failures were probably from 2000 to 2005/6. I've
not tried any for at least 2 or 3 years now.
Wanna-Be Sys Admin
> FYI, my WD failures were probably from 2000 to 2005/6. I've
> not tried any for at least 2 or 3 years now.
That should be, when the failures happened. I had good luck with WD's
until about 2000 or so, so the 90s were actually good to me and WD.
I've never had a good year or good luck with Maxtor, no matter what
year it was. I've had both good and bad luck with Seagate, but right
now mine are running great and have for years without a single problem.
BTW, I'm using 16 of the Seagate Barracuda ST3500641AS. Not the
fastest, biggest, but they are not very much, they are 500 gig and I've
not had a single failure (they have really good ratings -- again, I
waited a few months before getting them, but I do that with most all
hardware (boards, memory, cpu, drives, etc.)).