Is my new 500 GB Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 HDD affected?
Ant
I recently bought a new 500 GB SATA Seagate Barracuda 7200.11
ST3500320AS before Christmas 2008 and started using it on the 27th (work
time: 17 days). I am worried if I need to upgrade its firmware or return
the drive after reading about high failure rates online. However, those
were 1 TB and not the smaller sizes. I was wondering if my model was
affected.
I used Hard Drive Inspector program, in updated Windows XP Pro. SP3, to
get details about my two Seagate HDDs (don't think the older 320 GB
model is affected, but you never know):
Hard disk drive # 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General info
Interface : SATA - fixed
Manufacturer : SEAGATE
Model : 320620AS
Serial number : QF0XE9M
Firmware : 3.AAE
Logical geometry info
Cylinders : 16383
Heads : 16
Sectors per track : 63
Physical geometry info
Cylinders : 38913
Tracks per cylinder : 255
Sectors per track : 63
Bytes per sector : 512
Capacity available in LBA Mode : 625,142,448 sectors (305,245 MB)
Buffer size : 16384 KB
Logical drives : C:\; E:\; F:\;
Total free space : 273,656 MB
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Device features
Max block size in R/W operations : 16 sectors
IORDY support : supported
Serial ATA capabilities
SATA Specification Compliance : Yes
SATA Gen-1 signaling speed (1.5Gbps) : supported
SATA Gen-2 signaling speed : not supported
SATA Native Command Queuing : supported
Serial ATA features
Receipt of host-initiated interface power management request : not
supported
Device initiating interface power management : supported
DMA Setup Auto-Activate optimization : not supported
Non-zero buffer offsets in DMA Setup FIS : not supported
Transfer Modes
Supported PIO modes : 0 - 4
Supported Multiword DMA modes : 0 - 2
Supported Ultra DMA modes : 0 - 6
Interface version : ATA/ATA-7
Current transfer mode : SATA 1 (150 MB/s)
Power-on time : 11,472 hours (478 days)?
Min transfer time in Multiword DMA mode : 120 ns
Recommended tr. time in MW DMA mode : 120 ns
Min tr. time in PIO mode without IORDY : 120 ns
Min tr. time in PIO mode with IORDY : 120 ns
Drive features
Temperature sensor detected
Security command set support : supported
Power management support : supported
Write cache support : supported
Read look ahead support : supported
Host protected area support : supported
Microcode downloading support : supported
Enhanced power management support : not supported
Automatic acoustic management support : not supported
Security features
Security mode support : supported
Security mode usage : No
Security locking support : not supported
Security freezing support : supported
Security counter support : not supported
Enchanced security erase mode support : not supported
Security level : high
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Device S.M.A.R.T. status
SMART interface : SCSI-miniport; Physical Drive
Monitoring started at : 6/22/2007 8:41 AM
Last checked at : 1/17/2009 2:45 PM
Death time : not defined
# Attribute Value Thresh Raw
T.E.C. date Flags
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Raw Read Error Rate 119 6
224,573,904 - LC OC PR ER
3 Spin Up Time 95 0
0 - LC OC
4 Start/Stop Count 100 20
519 - OC EC SP
5 Reallocated Sector Count 100 36
0 - LC OC EC SP
7 Seek Error Rate 82 30
171,148,196 - LC OC PR ER
9 Power-On Hours 87 0
11,472 - OC EC SP
10 Spin Retry Count 100 97
0 - LC OC EC
12 Device Power Cycle Count 100 20
567 - OC EC SP
187 (Unknown Attribute)_187 100 0 0
- OC EC SP
189 (Unknown Attribute)_189 100 0 0
- OC ER EC SP
190 Temperature: 64 45 622,329,892
- OC SP
194 Temperature: 36 0 81,604,378,660
- OC SP
195 Hardware ECC Covered 70 0 128,291,465
- OC ER EC
197 Current Pending Sector Count 100 0 0
- OC EC
198 Offline Scan Uncorrectable Count 100 0 0
- EC
199 UltraDMA CRC Error Rate 200 0 0
- OC PR ER EC SP
200 Write Error Rate 100 0 0
-
202 Data Address Mark Errors 100 0 0
- OC EC SP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LC-life critical OC-online collection PR-performance related
ER-error rate EC-event count SP-self preserving
Hard disk drive # 2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General info
Interface : SATA - fixed
Manufacturer : SEAGATE
Model : 500320AS
Serial number : QM8QPS1
Firmware : SD15
Logical geometry info
Cylinders : 16383
Heads : 16
Sectors per track : 63
Physical geometry info
Cylinders : 60801
Tracks per cylinder : 255
Sectors per track : 63
Bytes per sector : 512
Capacity available in LBA Mode : 976,773,168 sectors (476,940 MB)
Buffer size : 0 KB
Logical drives : D:\; G:\; H:\; I:\;
Total free space : 264,546 MB
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Device features
Max block size in R/W operations : 16 sectors
IORDY support : supported
Serial ATA capabilities
SATA Specification Compliance : Yes
SATA Gen-1 signaling speed (1.5Gbps) : supported
SATA Gen-2 signaling speed : not supported
SATA Native Command Queuing : supported
Serial ATA features
Receipt of host-initiated interface power management request : not
supported
Device initiating interface power management : not supported
DMA Setup Auto-Activate optimization : not supported
Non-zero buffer offsets in DMA Setup FIS : not supported
Transfer Modes
Supported PIO modes : 0 - 4
Supported Multiword DMA modes : 0 - 2
Supported Ultra DMA modes : 0 - 6
Interface version : ATA/ATA-8
Current transfer mode : SATA 1 (150 MB/s)
Power-on time : 408 hours (17 days)?
Min transfer time in Multiword DMA mode : 120 ns
Recommended tr. time in MW DMA mode : 120 ns
Min tr. time in PIO mode without IORDY : 120 ns
Min tr. time in PIO mode with IORDY : 120 ns
Drive features
Temperature sensor detected
Security command set support : supported
Power management support : supported
Write cache support : supported
Read look ahead support : supported
Host protected area support : supported
Microcode downloading support : supported
Enhanced power management support : not supported
Automatic acoustic management support : not supported
Security features
Security erase time : 104 min
Security mode support : supported
Security mode usage : No
Security locking support : not supported
Security freezing support : supported
Security counter support : not supported
Enchanced security erase mode support : supported
Security level : high
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Device S.M.A.R.T. status
SMART interface : SCSI-miniport; Physical Drive
Monitoring started at : 1/17/2009 2:45 PM
Last checked at : 1/17/2009 2:45 PM
Death time : not defined
# Attribute Value Thresh Raw
T.E.C. date Flags
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Raw Read Error Rate 114 6
230,848,784 - LC OC PR ER
3 Spin Up Time 94 0
0 - LC OC
4 Start/Stop Count 100 20
22 - OC EC SP
5 Reallocated Sector Count 100 36
0 - LC OC EC SP
7 Seek Error Rate 60 30
8,592,185,153 - LC OC PR ER
9 Power-On Hours 100 0
408 - OC EC SP
10 Spin Retry Count 100 97
0 - LC OC EC
12 Device Power Cycle Count 100 20
22 - OC EC SP
184 (Unknown Attribute)_184 100 99 0
- OC EC SP
187 (Unknown Attribute)_187 100 0 0
- OC EC SP
188 (Unknown Attribute)_188 100 0 0
- OC EC SP
189 (Unknown Attribute)_189 100 0 0
- OC ER EC SP
190 Temperature: 70 45 521,469,982
- OC SP
194 Temperature: 30 0 81,604,378,654
- OC SP
195 Hardware ECC Covered 41 0 230,848,784
- OC ER EC
197 Current Pending Sector Count 100 0 0
- OC EC
198 Offline Scan Uncorrectable Count 100 0 0
- EC
199 UltraDMA CRC Error Rate 200 0 0
- OC PR ER EC SP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LC-life critical OC-online collection PR-performance related
ER-error rate EC-event count SP-self preserving
Did Seagate say which models were affected (couldn't find details) and
do I need to upgrade (firmware)/replace it? I'd rather not run into this
"brick" failure before it occurs.
Thank you in advance. :)
--
"It doesn't matter what your D&D manual says, you did not get 5
experience points for killing the giant ant in your kitchen." --BBspot's
Geek Horoscopes (7/30/2004)
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Phil/Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
| |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net
\ _ / Nuke ANT from e-mail address: phi...@earthlink.netANT
( ) or ANT...@zimage.com
Ant is/was listening to a song on his home computer: Liralei - More Than
Words (Lira's VMX) (ID: 203234)
Arno Wagner
> Hello!
> I recently bought a new 500 GB SATA Seagate Barracuda 7200.11
> ST3500320AS before Christmas 2008 and started using it on the 27th (work
> time: 17 days). I am worried if I need to upgrade its firmware or return
> the drive after reading about high failure rates online. However, those
> were 1 TB and not the smaller sizes. I was wondering if my model was
> affected.
> I used Hard Drive Inspector program, in updated Windows XP Pro. SP3, to
> get details about my two Seagate HDDs (don't think the older 320 GB
> model is affected, but you never know):
I think it is currently not quite clear which models are affected,
I saw at least one announcement that all 7200.11 sizes can be affected.
Best monitor the seagate support pages and do not trust the
drive for the next few weeks.
Arno
Ant
>> I recently bought a new 500 GB SATA Seagate Barracuda 7200.11
>> ST3500320AS before Christmas 2008 and started using it on the 27th (work
>> time: 17 days). I am worried if I need to upgrade its firmware or return
>> the drive after reading about high failure rates online. However, those
>> were 1 TB and not the smaller sizes. I was wondering if my model was
>> affected.
>
>> I used Hard Drive Inspector program, in updated Windows XP Pro. SP3, to
>> get details about my two Seagate HDDs (don't think the older 320 GB
>> model is affected, but you never know):
>
> I think it is currently not quite clear which models are affected,
> I saw at least one announcement that all 7200.11 sizes can be affected.
Where did you see that?
> Best monitor the seagate support pages and do not trust the
> drive for the next few weeks.
Dang it, I am using it as a primary production drive on my home PC. I do
have Ghost (.gho and .ghs) backups before copying all my datas over. :(
Earlier today, I e-mailed discs...@seagate.com to see what they say
about my Seagate HDDs just in case.
--
"When I am at my lowest, that is when I see things the clearest. It's
hard to care about ants when you're soaring with eagles." --unknown
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Phil/Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
| |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net
\ _ / Nuke ANT from e-mail address: phi...@earthlink.netANT
( ) or ANT...@zimage.com
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on his home computer.
Ed Light
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/16246
--
Ed Light
Better World News TV Channel:
http://realnews.com
Bring the Troops Home:
http://bringthemhomenow.org
http://antiwar.com
Iraq Veterans Against the War:
http://ivaw.org
http://couragetoresist.org
Send spam to the FTC at
sp...@uce.gov
Thanks, robots.
DevilsPGD
If by "currently not quite clear which models are affected" you meant
"the list of models affected is on Seagate's KB" then you're correct.
http://seagate.custkb.com/seagate/crm/selfservice/search.jsp?DocId=207931
If you don't have one of the listed model numbers then you're safe, but
if you do, then what isn't clear is which firmware revisions are
affected, at this time you need to contact Seagate with your brand,
model, serial and firmware version to find out if you need to update.
There are more then just 1TB drives on the list.
Ant
>>> ST3500320AS before Christmas 2008 and started using it on the 27th (work
>>> time: 17 days). I am worried if I need to upgrade its firmware or return
>>> the drive after reading about high failure rates online. However, those
>>> were 1 TB and not the smaller sizes. I was wondering if my model was
>>> affected.
>>> I used Hard Drive Inspector program, in updated Windows XP Pro. SP3, to
>>> get details about my two Seagate HDDs (don't think the older 320 GB
>>> model is affected, but you never know):
>>
>> I think it is currently not quite clear which models are affected,
>> I saw at least one announcement that all 7200.11 sizes can be affected.
>> Best monitor the seagate support pages and do not trust the
>> drive for the next few weeks.
>
> If by "currently not quite clear which models are affected" you meant
> "the list of models affected is on Seagate's KB" then you're correct.
>
> http://seagate.custkb.com/seagate/crm/selfservice/search.jsp?DocId=207931
>
> If you don't have one of the listed model numbers then you're safe, but
> if you do, then what isn't clear is which firmware revisions are
> affected, at this time you need to contact Seagate with your brand,
> model, serial and firmware version to find out if you need to update.
>
> There are more then just 1TB drives on the list.
Dang it! My new 500 GB is on the list! I have SD15 firmware. Um, where
do I get the later firmware or do I really have to go through Seagate's
technical support? :(
HDD Inspector is warning me that my new 500 GB HDD's current seek error
rate state is at 43% (current=60, best=100, threshold=30, and worst=57).
Um, is this related to the failures people are having?
Device S.M.A.R.T. status
SMART interface : SCSI-miniport; Physical Drive
Monitoring started at : 1/17/2009 2:45 PM
Last checked at : 1/17/2009 9:48 PM
Death time : not defined
# Attribute Value Thresh Raw
T.E.C. date Flags
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Raw Read Error Rate 114 6
233,580,137 - LC OC PR ER
3 Spin Up Time 94 0
0 - LC OC
4 Start/Stop Count 100 20
22 - OC EC SP
5 Reallocated Sector Count 100 36
0 - LC OC EC SP
7 Seek Error Rate 60 30
8,592,191,466 - LC OC PR ER
9 Power-On Hours 100 0
415 - OC EC SP
10 Spin Retry Count 100 97
0 - LC OC EC
12 Device Power Cycle Count 100 20
22 - OC EC SP
184 (Unknown Attribute)_184 100 99 0
- OC EC SP
187 (Unknown Attribute)_187 100 0 0
- OC EC SP
188 (Unknown Attribute)_188 100 0 0
- OC EC SP
189 (Unknown Attribute)_189 100 0 0
- OC ER EC SP
190 Temperature: 68 45 555,024,416
- OC SP
194 Temperature: 32 0 81,604,378,656
- OC SP
195 Hardware ECC Covered 41 0 233,580,137
- OC ER EC
197 Current Pending Sector Count 100 0 0
- OC EC
198 Offline Scan Uncorrectable Count 100 0 0
- EC
199 UltraDMA CRC Error Rate 200 0 0
- OC PR ER EC SP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LC-life critical OC-online collection PR-performance related
ER-error rate EC-event count SP-self preserving
:(
--
"The ants are my friends, they're blowin' in the wind. The ant, sir, is
blowin' in the wind." --the misheard lyrics to Bob Dylan's "Blowin' in
the Wind"
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Phil/Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
| |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net
\ _ / Nuke ANT from e-mail address: phi...@earthlink.netANT
( ) or ANT...@zimage.com
Eli Luong
> If by "currently not quite clear which models are affected" you meant
> "the list of models affected is on Seagate's KB" then you're correct.
>
>
> If you don't have one of the listed model numbers then you're safe, but
> if you do, then what isn't clear is which firmware revisions are
> affected, at this time you need to contact Seagate with your brand,
> model, serial and firmware version to find out if you need to update.
>
> There are more then just 1TB drives on the list.
They should know by the end of next week, after all their systems are
updated. You can call them, and then read off your serial number and
they should be able to let you know what needs to happen.
DevilsPGD
<ANT...@zimage.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>Dang it! My new 500 GB is on the list! I have SD15 firmware. Um, where
>do I get the later firmware or do I really have to go through Seagate's
>technical support? :(
Right now, tech support. This article covers why they don't make
firmware available in most cases, although it wouldn't surprise me to
see a tool show up that addresses this specific issue, from identifying
the drives to completing the update.
http://seagate.custkb.com/seagate/crm/selfservice/search.jsp?DocId=206091&Hilite=
Arno Wagner
> http://seagate.custkb.com/seagate/crm/selfservice/search.jsp?DocId=207931
Yes, that is what I meant. Dod not know that you can ask them with
the exact drive data.
> There are more then just 1TB drives on the list.
Looks that way.
Arno
Franc Zabkar
to keyboard and composed:
>HDD Inspector is warning me that my new 500 GB HDD's current seek error
>rate state is at 43% (current=60, best=100, threshold=30, and worst=57).
>Um, is this related to the failures people are having?
IME the raw "seek error rate" numbers are difficult to interpret. I
believe you will find that this parameter produces large numbers in
earlier models as well. In fact my Seagate drives appear to function
perfectly well in spite of them. I believe my own testing shows that
the raw seek error rate parameter for my old 13GB Seagate HDD is a
seek count, not an error, and not a rate.
If you try to make sense of your own data, you see that for a total of
415 Power-On Hours you have a Seek Error Rate of 8,592,191,466. If you
juggle these numbers, you arrive at a nonsensical figure of 48
nanoseconds per seek. As for the worst and threshold figures of 60 and
30, AFAICT *every* working Seagate drive reports the same number.
See my search results:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage/msg/1715328b4f7f1fc4?dmode=source
>Device S.M.A.R.T. status
># Attribute Value Thresh Raw
> T.E.C. date Flags
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 1 Raw Read Error Rate 114 6
>233,580,137 - LC OC PR ER
> 7 Seek Error Rate 60 30
>8,592,191,466 - LC OC PR ER
> 9 Power-On Hours 100 0
>415 - OC EC SP
Parameter 190 (=68) appears to be equal to "100 degrees C - current
temperature". I'm guessing that the threshold value of 45 actually
reflects a maximum allowable temperature of 55 degC.
>190 Temperature: 68 45 555,024,416
> - OC SP
Parameter 194 (=32) appears to be the current temperature of the drive
in degrees C.
>194 Temperature: 32 0 81,604,378,656
> - OC SP
- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
Franc Zabkar
to keyboard and composed:
>I used Hard Drive Inspector program, in updated Windows XP Pro. SP3, to
>get details about my two Seagate HDDs ...
I notice that the current temperature is actually stored in the lower
order bits of the raw value. The high order bits must be used for some
other purpose. This would account for the apparently absurd figures. I
suspect that the raw seek error rate value may be similarly affected.
>Hard disk drive # 1
>190 Temperature: 64 45 622,329,892
622,329,892 = 0x25180024 ---> 0x25 = 0x24 + 1 ???
---> 0x18 = initial temp (24degC) ???
>194 Temperature: 36 0 81,604,378,660
81,604,378,660 = 0x1300000024
0x24 = 36 decimal (deg C)
>Hard disk drive # 2
> 7 Seek Error Rate 60 30 8,592,185,153
8,592,185,153 = 0x200225741 ---> seek error rate = 0x225741
>190 Temperature: 70 45 521,469,982
521,469,982 = 0x1F15001E ---> 0x1F = 0x1E + 1 ???
---> 0x15 = initial temp (21degC) ???
>194 Temperature: 30 0 81,604,378,654
81,604,378,654 = 0x130000001E
0x1E = 30 decimal (deg C)
Ant
http://seagate.custkb.com/seagate/crm/selfservice/search.jsp?DocId=207951
from
http://forums.seagate.com/stx/board/message?board.id=ata_drives&message.id=5186
I am scared to try it. Hehe, but then I have the model and old firmware
listed. DAH!
On 1/17/2009 2:50 PM PT, Ant typed:
"The great companies did not know that the line between hunger and anger
is a thin line. And money that might have gone to wages went for gas,
for guns, for agents and spies, for blacklists, for drilling. On the
highways the people moved like ants and searched for work, for food. And
the anger began to ferment." --John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Phil/Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
| |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net
\ _ / Nuke ANT from e-mail address: phi...@earthlink.netANT
( ) or ANT...@zimage.com
Ant
OK, I took a chance after doing data backups (not the drives) and it FAILED!
I think the firmware upgrader crashed too. I got (don't have a digital
camera to get everything):
Exiting due to signal SIGSEGV
Page fault at eip=0000 6683 error=0004
.
. bunch of memory addresses
.
Error: Specific model not found. ST35000320AS expected
Cycle power to continue...
So, I turned PC off and turned on. HDD is still there (whew), but still
at SD15. What the heck?! How do I upgrade if it is crashing(?). :(
On 1/18/2009 9:03 PM PT, Ant typed:
> FYI. Seagate released the firmwares:
>
> http://seagate.custkb.com/seagate/crm/selfservice/search.jsp?DocId=207951
> from
> http://forums.seagate.com/stx/board/message?board.id=ata_drives&message.id=5186
>
>
> I am scared to try it. Hehe, but then I have the model and old firmware
> listed. DAH!
>
>
> On 1/17/2009 2:50 PM PT, Ant typed:
>
--
At length, when they came to a (lowly) valley of ants, one of the ants
said: "O ye ants, get into your habitations, lest Solomon and his hosts
crush you (under foot) without knowing it." --Surah 27. The Ant, The
Ants, line 18
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Phil/Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
| |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net
\ _ / Nuke ANT from e-mail address: phi...@earthlink.netANT
( ) or ANT...@zimage.com
Ant
have two SATA Seagate HDDs (other one is a 320 GB) hooked up. Is that
why the upgrader is crashing?
On 1/18/2009 11:16 PM PT, Ant typed:
"The life of an ant and that of my child should be granted equal
consideration." --Michael W. Fox, Vice President, The Human Society of
the United States, The Inhumane Society, New York, 1990.
Arno Wagner
> Is it true that I only can have one HDD connected to upgrade firmware? I
> have two SATA Seagate HDDs (other one is a 320 GB) hooked up. Is that
> why the upgrader is crashing?
It is possible that they did that as a safety measure. I do the same
thing when wiping drives, i.e. disconnect everything but the drive
and boot from USB-stick/CDROM. It is also possible that they wanted
to avoid presenting people with a choice on which HDD to patch.
If so, it was paranoid or incompetent, because they can query the
firmware version before patching. But bad user interfaces are
prevalent. This seems to be just one more example.
At least it did not kill the drive...
Arno
Ant
Yeah, it seems like MANY people can't patch (same symptoms and even on
one HDD!). Good job, Seagate. :(
--
"When the ants unite their mouths, they can carry an elephant."
--Mossian Proverb
Franc Zabkar
to keyboard and composed:
>Is it true that I only can have one HDD connected to upgrade firmware? I
>have two SATA Seagate HDDs (other one is a 320 GB) hooked up. Is that
>why the upgrader is crashing?
The readme.txt file states ...
"Disconnect all PATA or SATA devices from the system, except the
device needing the firmware update."
I don't know if this is strictly necessary, or whether it is only a
safety measure.
Franc Zabkar
to keyboard and composed:
>Damnit!
>
>OK, I took a chance after doing data backups (not the drives) and it FAILED!
>
>I think the firmware upgrader crashed too. I got (don't have a digital
>camera to get everything):
>
>Exiting due to signal SIGSEGV
>
>Page fault at eip=0000 6683 error=0004
>.
>. bunch of memory addresses
>.
>Error: Specific model not found. ST35000320AS expected
Shouldn't that be ST3500320AS? (one too many zeroes)
What do you see if you choose the following option in the menu?
S) Scan ATA devices
BTW, Hard Drive Inspector reports the model number as "500320AS". Is
this what the drive reports, or does HDI drop the "ST3" prefix? Does
the BIOS POST see the ST3 prefix?
If the drive is actually identifying itself as "500320AS" rather than
"ST3500320AS", then you could edit the "set model" line in the
flash.bat file accordingly. I'd be *very* wary of doing this, though.
:SEAFLASH4
set model=ST3500320AS --> change to set model=500320AS
%exe% -m %family% -f %firmware% -i %model% %options%
if errorlevel 2 goto WRONGMODEL
if errorlevel 1 goto ERROR
goto DONE
>Cycle power to continue...
>
>
>So, I turned PC off and turned on. HDD is still there (whew), but still
>at SD15. What the heck?! How do I upgrade if it is crashing(?). :(
>
>
>On 1/18/2009 9:03 PM PT, Ant typed:
>
>> FYI. Seagate released the firmwares:
>>
>> http://seagate.custkb.com/seagate/crm/selfservice/search.jsp?DocId=207951
>> from
>> http://forums.seagate.com/stx/board/message?board.id=ata_drives&message.id=5186
>>
>>
>> I am scared to try it. Hehe, but then I have the model and old firmware
>> listed. DAH!
>>> Hard disk drive # 2
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> General info
>>> Interface : SATA - fixed
>>> Manufacturer : SEAGATE
>>> Model : 500320AS
>>> Serial number : QM8QPS1
>>> Firmware : SD15
- Franc Zabkar
Franc Zabkar
to keyboard and composed:
>On 1/19/2009 5:54 AM PT, Arno Wagner typed:
>
>> Previously Ant <ANT...@zimage.com> wrote:
>>> Is it true that I only can have one HDD connected to upgrade firmware? I
>>> have two SATA Seagate HDDs (other one is a 320 GB) hooked up. Is that
>>> why the upgrader is crashing?
>>
>> It is possible that they did that as a safety measure. I do the same
>> thing when wiping drives, i.e. disconnect everything but the drive
>> and boot from USB-stick/CDROM. It is also possible that they wanted
>> to avoid presenting people with a choice on which HDD to patch.
>>
>> If so, it was paranoid or incompetent, because they can query the
>> firmware version before patching. But bad user interfaces are
>> prevalent. This seems to be just one more example.
>>
>> At least it did not kill the drive...
>
>Yeah, it seems like MANY people can't patch (same symptoms and even on
>one HDD!). Good job, Seagate. :(
This forum message shows some screen shots of the problem:
http://forums.seagate.com/stx/board/message?board.id=ata_drives&message.id=5302
Do you get the same SIGSEGV error if you deliberately select the wrong
model? If not, then this would suggest that the flash upgrade utility
(fdl462a.exe) is bombing out *after* correctly identifying the drive,
and that its DOS ERRORLEVEL of 2 is being misinterpreted by flash.bat.
Flash.bat assumes that fdl462a.exe returns only two error levels (see
below), and it assumes that an error level of 2 always reflects "wrong
model". Instead it could be that the flash loader is actually
returning an error level of 3, for example. In DOS (or FREEDOS) a test
for ERRORLEVEL=2 when it is actually 2 or greater will return a TRUE
result.
if errorlevel 2 goto WRONGMODEL
if errorlevel 1 goto ERROR
Try reducing your system memory to only one stick of RAM. Maybe
FREEDOS is having trouble working with large amounts of memory. ???
Ant
Nope, it's a bad job from Seagate. Their newer releases now brick 500 GB
HDDs (did not try the upgrade). :( Seagate pulled it off the Web site.
--
"For while the giants have just been talking about an information
superhighway, the ants have actually been building one: the Internet."
From "The Accidental Superhighway." The Economist: A Survey of the
Internet, 1-7 July 1995, insert.
Ant
>> Damnit!
>>
>> OK, I took a chance after doing data backups (not the drives) and it FAILED!
>>
>> I think the firmware upgrader crashed too. I got (don't have a digital
>> camera to get everything):
>>
>> Exiting due to signal SIGSEGV
>>
>> Page fault at eip=0000 6683 error=0004
>> .
>> . bunch of memory addresses
>> .
>> Error: Specific model not found. ST35000320AS expected
>
> Shouldn't that be ST3500320AS? (one too many zeroes)
Whoops. Too many zeros indeed. I had to write down what I saw on my
monitor. Remember, no camera.
> What do you see if you choose the following option in the menu?
>
> S) Scan ATA devices
It saw both of my 320 and 500 GB Seagate HDDs. I ran it before I tried
the firmware.
> BTW, Hard Drive Inspector reports the model number as "500320AS". Is
> this what the drive reports, or does HDI drop the "ST3" prefix? Does
> the BIOS POST see the ST3 prefix?
It looks like HDI dropped it. Seagate's DriveDetect.exe didn't.
> If the drive is actually identifying itself as "500320AS" rather than
> "ST3500320AS", then you could edit the "set model" line in the
> flash.bat file accordingly. I'd be *very* wary of doing this, though.
>
> :SEAFLASH4
> set model=ST3500320AS --> change to set model=500320AS
> %exe% -m %family% -f %firmware% -i %model% %options%
> if errorlevel 2 goto WRONGMODEL
> if errorlevel 1 goto ERROR
> goto DONE
Well, Seagate released another firmware and it's even worst for 500 GB
users. It BRICKS it after the successful upgrades according to Seagate's
forums. Good thing I wasn't around to try it fast. Seagate is really
screwing up!
--
"The shadows now so long do grow,... That brambles like tall cedars
show,... Molehills seem mountains, and the ant... Appears a monstrous
elephant." --Charles Cotton's poem
Arno Wagner
>> Try reducing your system memory to only one stick of RAM. Maybe
>> FREEDOS is having trouble working with large amounts of memory. ???
> Nope, it's a bad job from Seagate. Their newer releases now brick 500 GB
> HDDs (did not try the upgrade). :( Seagate pulled it off the Web site.
Fun! Seems they have the intern work this case....
No Seagate trash for me for a long time.
Arno
Ant
>> Nope, it's a bad job from Seagate. Their newer releases now brick 500 GB
>> HDDs (did not try the upgrade). :( Seagate pulled it off the Web site.
>
> Fun! Seems they have the intern work this case....
LOL. Or incompetent people. See the angry users on Seagate's forums.
> No Seagate trash for me for a long time.
Ya, me too. So who are the good brands these days? What the frak
happened to Seagate? Did its quality go down since it bought Maxtor? :(
--
"Ants live safely till they have gotten wings." --unknown
Rod Speed
> Arno Wagner wrote
>>> Nope, it's a bad job from Seagate. Their newer releases now brick 500 GB HDDs (did not try the upgrade). :( Seagate
>>> pulled it off the Web site.
>> Fun! Seems they have the intern work this case....
> LOL. Or incompetent people. See the angry users on Seagate's forums.
>> No Seagate trash for me for a long time.
> Ya, me too. So who are the good brands these days?
Samsung.
> What the frak happened to Seagate?
Its always had some real quirks.
> Did its quality go down since it bought Maxtor?
You do have to wonder about an operation that was actually stupid enough to buy Maxtor at all.
But then thats been the way they have always operated, they have taken over quite a few now.
Arno Wagner
> On 1/20/2009 4:56 AM PT, Arno Wagner typed:
>>> Nope, it's a bad job from Seagate. Their newer releases now brick 500 GB
>>> HDDs (did not try the upgrade). :( Seagate pulled it off the Web site.
>>
>> Fun! Seems they have the intern work this case....
> LOL. Or incompetent people. See the angry users on Seagate's forums.
>> No Seagate trash for me for a long time.
> Ya, me too. So who are the good brands these days? What the frak
> happened to Seagate? Did its quality go down since it bought Maxtor? :(
WD is reliable, but I have had interface incompatibilities with several
external enclosures. Samsung never gave me any trouble except for
one notebook HDD, that sometimes takes long enough to answer to be
kicked from RAID (about once every 12 months). That is with about
8 Samsung drives in use. Hitachi also looks good at the moment.
As to what happened, I expect good old-fashioned corporate greed
and the stupidity that comes with it. Manufacturing in China,
inadequate testing, aiming for the speed-crown/capacity-crown,
no matter what this does to reliaability, etc.. Quality will get
better again, when these people have learned a bit humility. And
the angrier the user response, the longer it will take until
they slip again.
Arno
ANT...@zimage.com
>>have two SATA Seagate HDDs (other one is a 320 GB) hooked up. Is that
>>why the upgrader is crashing?
>
> The readme.txt file states ...
>
> "Disconnect all PATA or SATA devices from the system, except the
> device needing the firmware update."
>
> I don't know if this is strictly necessary, or whether it is only a
> safety measure.
Yeah, that bothers me since I can't physically open my computer cases
and fiddle with the internals due to my physical disabilities. Damn,
Seagate. :(
--
"We are anthill men upon an anthill world." --Ray Bradbury
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Phillip (Ant) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
| |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net
\ _ / Please remove ANT if replying by e-mail.
( )
Franc Zabkar
to keyboard and composed:
>I recently bought a new 500 GB SATA Seagate Barracuda 7200.11
>ST3500320AS before Christmas 2008 and started using it on the 27th (work
>time: 17 days). I am worried if I need to upgrade its firmware ...
>
>I used Hard Drive Inspector program, in updated Windows XP Pro. SP3, to
>get details about my two Seagate HDDs ...
>Hard disk drive # 2
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>General info
> Interface : SATA - fixed
> Manufacturer : SEAGATE
> Model : 500320AS
> Serial number : QM8QPS1
> Firmware : SD15
I notice that the SD1A firmware included with the update is dated Dec
2, 2008. IIUC, only drives manufactured during December 2008 were
affected by the "bricking" bug. If SD1A was intended to fix the
problem, then how long have Seagate been aware of it, and why wasn't
the firmware fix applied at the factory? If SD1A was developed before
Seagate became aware of the bug, then why bother releasing it, unless
it fixed the problem purely by accident?
Franc Zabkar
keyboard and composed:
>>>Is it true that I only can have one HDD connected to upgrade firmware? I
>>>have two SATA Seagate HDDs (other one is a 320 GB) hooked up. Is that
>>>why the upgrader is crashing?
>>
>> The readme.txt file states ...
>>
>> "Disconnect all PATA or SATA devices from the system, except the
>> device needing the firmware update."
>>
>> I don't know if this is strictly necessary, or whether it is only a
>> safety measure.
>
>Yeah, that bothers me since I can't physically open my computer cases
>and fiddle with the internals due to my physical disabilities. Damn,
>Seagate. :(
See this forum post:
http://forums.seagate.com/stx/board/message?board.id=ata_drives&thread.id=5625&view=by_date_ascending&page=3
"I just wanted to flash one drive, and this tool just flashed BOTH of
my 3500320AS drives and bricked them both."
Ant
> See this forum post:
> http://forums.seagate.com/stx/board/message?board.id=ata_drives&thread.id=5625&view=by_date_ascending&page=3
>
> "I just wanted to flash one drive, and this tool just flashed BOTH of
> my 3500320AS drives and bricked them both."
Yes, everyone is bricking on 500 GB HDDs on the second firmware release
(first release was a crash and no updates). Seagate pulled the firmwares
as of last night. Unbelievable, isn't it? Ironic that HDD still has a
risk to be bricked either way (I will take the no firmware update ;P)! :(
--
"Trivial hurts, tiny human accidents," said Firenze, as his hooves
thudded over the mossy floor. "These are of no more significance than
the scurryings of ants to the wide universe, and are unaffected by
planetary movements." --Harry Potter book
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Phil/Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
| |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net
Ant
Good question. I should ask this in forum too.
--
"This is the ant. Treat it with respect. For it may very well be the
next dominant lifeform of our planet." --Empire of the Ants movie
Ant
> On 1/20/2009 8:05 PM PT, Franc Zabkar typed:
>
>> See this forum post:
>> http://forums.seagate.com/stx/board/message?board.id=ata_drives&thread.id=5625&view=by_date_ascending&page=3
>>
>>
>> "I just wanted to flash one drive, and this tool just flashed BOTH of
>> my 3500320AS drives and bricked them both."
>
> Yes, everyone is bricking on 500 GB HDDs on the second firmware release
> (first release was a crash and no updates). Seagate pulled the firmwares
> as of last night. Unbelievable, isn't it? Ironic that HDD still has a
> risk to be bricked either way (I will take the no firmware update ;P)! :(
Supposedly a guy working for Seagate:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1098793&cid=26542735 ...
--
"We are anthill men upon an anthill world." --Ray Bradbury
Arno Wagner
> On 1/20/2009 9:58 PM PT, Ant typed:
>> On 1/20/2009 8:05 PM PT, Franc Zabkar typed:
>>
>>> See this forum post:
>>> http://forums.seagate.com/stx/board/message?board.id=ata_drives&thread.id=5625&view=by_date_ascending&page=3
>>>
>>>
>>> "I just wanted to flash one drive, and this tool just flashed BOTH of
>>> my 3500320AS drives and bricked them both."
>>
>> Yes, everyone is bricking on 500 GB HDDs on the second firmware release
>> (first release was a crash and no updates). Seagate pulled the firmwares
>> as of last night. Unbelievable, isn't it? Ironic that HDD still has a
>> risk to be bricked either way (I will take the no firmware update ;P)! :(
> Supposedly a guy working for Seagate:
> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1098793&cid=26542735 ...
Found that too. May be faked, but to me is sound very convincing.
Also there would be little incentive to fake it and then write this.
If true, then flashing does not brick, merely disables and re-flashing
will solve. Also the 320 log entry issue sounds convincing. If these
logs are indeed on average written once every few days, then it would
take on average several years to be hit for a machine that is powered
down daily. Might still be something wrong with those hit or, possible
as well, with the systems theya re connected to, for example if
controller errors can trigger logging.
This would mean the hardware is fine and data integrity is not affected.
This would also mean that firmware testing is not done by really
competent people, as this is an issue that should be relatively easy to
find with a simulator.
Arno
Arno Wagner
It can be a fix by accident. It can also be a fix to something
else and it was not realized this issue was fixed to. Happens
quite often.
Arno
Ant
> >>> http://forums.seagate.com/stx/board/message?board.id=ata_drives&thread.id=5625&view=by_date_ascending&page=3
> >>>
> >>> "I just wanted to flash one drive, and this tool just flashed BOTH of
> >>> my 3500320AS drives and bricked them both."
> >>
> >> Yes, everyone is bricking on 500 GB HDDs on the second firmware release
> >> (first release was a crash and no updates). Seagate pulled the firmwares
> >> as of last night. Unbelievable, isn't it? Ironic that HDD still has a
> >> risk to be bricked either way (I will take the no firmware update ;P)! :(
> > Supposedly a guy working for Seagate:
> > http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1098793&cid=26542735 ...
> Found that too. May be faked, but to me is sound very convincing.
> Also there would be little incentive to fake it and then write this.
Everyone says that too. Just take it as a rumor.
> If true, then flashing does not brick, merely disables and re-flashing
> will solve. Also the 320 log entry issue sounds convincing. If these
> logs are indeed on average written once every few days, then it would
> take on average several years to be hit for a machine that is powered
> down daily. Might still be something wrong with those hit or, possible
> as well, with the systems theya re connected to, for example if
> controller errors can trigger logging.
> This would mean the hardware is fine and data integrity is not affected.
> This would also mean that firmware testing is not done by really
> competent people, as this is an issue that should be relatively easy to
> find with a simulator.
I asked about his "Then the bricking issue came to their attention. It
took so long because it's an issue that's hard to track down - pretty
much the journal or log space in the firmware is written to if certain
events occur. IF the drive is powered down when there are 320 entries in
this journal or log, then when it is powered back up, the drive errors
out on init and won't boot properly - to the point that it won't even
report it's information to the BIOS." comment and got this reply in
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1098793&cid=26546311 ... "As far as
I know, no. There may be a way using the controller some people have
posted instructions on building, but your best bet would be just to
watch the KB article like a hawk and update the firmware as soon as a
good release is out."
Is there a way to view and/or clear these journals/logs? Or is that only
seen by Seagate? :(
--
"What, like I had to live with all those ants? Do you know what I did to
those ants? HoooHooo! No more ants!" --unknown
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
| |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net
\ _ / Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
( )
Franc Zabkar
<fza...@iinternode.on.net> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>This forum message shows some screen shots of the problem:
>http://forums.seagate.com/stx/board/message?board.id=ata_drives&message.id=5302
>
>Do you get the same SIGSEGV error if you deliberately select the wrong
>model? If not, then this would suggest that the flash upgrade utility
>(fdl462a.exe) is bombing out *after* correctly identifying the drive,
>and that its DOS ERRORLEVEL of 2 is being misinterpreted by flash.bat.
>
>Flash.bat assumes that fdl462a.exe returns only two error levels (see
>below), and it assumes that an error level of 2 always reflects "wrong
>model". Instead it could be that the flash loader is actually
>returning an error level of 3, for example. In DOS (or FREEDOS) a test
>for ERRORLEVEL=2 when it is actually 2 or greater will return a TRUE
>result.
>
> if errorlevel 2 goto WRONGMODEL
> if errorlevel 1 goto ERROR
I have extracted several files from Seagate's ISO.
This is the batch file that flashes your HDD:
http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/Moose/flash.bat
This utility detects your drive:
http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/Moose/SeaEnum.exe
This is the firmware flasher:
http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/Moose/FDL462a.EXE
This is the unpacked version of the above flasher:
http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/Moose/fdl462a.upx
This is the SD1A firmware image:
http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SD1AMOOS.LOD
Flash.bat looks for these four models:
ST31000340AS
ST3750330AS
ST3640330AS
ST3500320AS
The following model numbers appear within the body of fdl462a.upx. The
list does not include the abovementioned models.
=====================================================================
ST330630A ST320420A ST315320A ST313520A ST310210A ST39111A
ST330631A ST320424A ST315324A ST310216A ST340825A ST340823A
ST330624A ST330621A ST320415A ST320413A ST315311A ST310217A
ST310211A ST38411A ST37511A ST340824A ST330620A ST320414A
ST315310A ST313624A ST310215A ST39113A ST380021A ST360021A
ST340016A ST330011A ST320011A ST315313A ST380020A ST360020A
ST340810A ST330610A ST320410A ST315312A ST310213A ST940020A
ST930020A ST920010A ST915311A ST910211A ST940421A ST930421A
ST920411A ST915410A ST910410A ST3120024A ST3120023A ST380024A
ST380023A ST360016A ST360015A ST340017A ST330013A ST320013A
ST3120020A ST380022A ST360012A ST340012A ST330012A ST320012A
ST3120023AS ST380023AS ST360015AS ST340017AS ST330013AS
ST320013AS ST3160023A ST3160021A ST3120026A ST3120022A ST380013A
ST380011A ST360014A ST340014A ST3160022A ST3120025A ST380012A
ST340019A ST3160022ACE ST3120025ACE ST380012ACE ST340019ACE
ST3160023AS ST3160021AS ST3120026AS ST3120022AS ST380013AS
ST380011AS ST360014AS ST340111AS ST340014AS ST940011AM ST920011AM
ST94811AB ST94811A ST94011A ST93812A ST93012A ST92811A ST92011A
ST940110A ST94019A ST94018A ST93015A ST93014A ST92014A ST92013A
ST980021AS ST960021AS ST940021AS ST320021A-RK ST3200822A
ST3200021A ST3100011A ST3200822AS ST980827A ST980227A ST960227A
ST960827A ST9402110A ST9408110A ST930216A ST930816A ST920215A
ST920815A ST3160827AS ST3120827AS ST380817AS ST340212AS ST340812AS
ST380219AS ST380819AS ST3120228AS ST3120828AS ST3160228AS
ST3160828AS
=====================================================================
This is the command line in flash.bat that calls FDL462A.EXE:
FDL462A -m Moose -f SD1AMOOS.LOD -i %model% -s -x -b -v -a 20
The following usage docs are embedded within fdl462a.upx. I don't see
a "-x" option. The "Tolerent (sic) or Explicit Model Check" option is
also a bit ambiguous, at least to me. Does it mean that the flasher
should go ahead and upgrade the firmware even if the detected model
number is not in its list of supported models? If so, then why does
flash.bat report WRONGMODEL?
=====================================================================
Usage: %s <port|#> <0|1|#> [options]
<port|#> Flash devices located at the specified base or any,
'#', port address. Port address must be in hexadecimal.
<0|1|#> Flash master, '0', slave, '1', or both, '#', devices.
-f <file> Specify the filename prefix of the flash files.
This defaults to 'seaflash' if not provided. Filename
extensions '.fls', '.ovl', '.crt', and '.tbl' are
assumed.
-c Send a congen file, fully specified by -f.
-r Include the serial flash file when flashing.
-s Only send a single file, fully specified by -f.
-e <rev> Exclude firmare if this version exists.
-v Toggles verbose mode on/off. Default is off.
-l List supported models.
-u Feature spin up
Usage: %s <port|#> <0|1|#> [options]
<port|#> Flash devices located at the specified base or any, '#',
port address. Port address must be in hexadecimal.
<0|1|#> Flash master, '0', slave, '1', or both, '#', devices.
-e <rev> Exclude firmare if this version exists.
-v Toggles verbosemode on/off. Default is off.
-l List supported models.
-u Feature spin up
-k <UID> Specify the unique descriptor to flash
Usage: %s -m <name> [options]
-m <name> Specify the model family to flash.
-f <file> Specify the filename prefix of the flash files.
This defaults to 'seaflash' if not provided. Filename
extensions '.fls', '.ovl', '.crt', and '.tbl' are
assumed.
-g <file> read a configuration file to get information on whether
the firmware should be downloaded to the specified model
drive, please refer to 'cfgreadme.txt'.
-h <file> read a configuration file to check valid drive model,
firmware version(full name)and firmware file name line
by line.if match all the parameters, starts downloading.
please refer to 'hcfgreadme.txt'
-j <file> encrypt the config file for -h option from *.cfg to
*.cfs.
-o <file> decrypt the config file for -h option from *.cfs to
*.cfg.
-c Send a congen file, fully specified by -f.
-r Include the serial flash file when flashing.
-s Only send a single file, fully specified by -f.
-p <port> Only flash devices located at the specified base port
address. Port address must be in hexadecimal.
-d <0|1> Only flash master, '0', or slave, '1', devices.
-e <rev> Exclude firmare if this version exists.
-v Toggles verbose mode on/off. Default is off.
-l List supported family names and models.
-u Feature spin up
-n Disable Promise 66/100/133 card.
-b Segmented download of DLDxx.BIN files , or the -f
<file> if specified.
-w SMART Clear Logs.
-t Diagnostics Unlock Of M2TD.
-i <Model> Tolerent or Explicit Model Check.
-k <UID> Specify the unique descriptor to flash
-a <seconds> Specify how long to delay after download complete
Usage: %s -<target> <datafile> -m <name> [options]
-<target> pm, ps, sm, ss (pm = primary master, etc..)
-m <name> Specify the model family to flash.
-c Send a congen file.
-r Include the serial flash file when flashing.
-s Only send a single file, fully specified by -f.
-v Toggles verbose mode on/off. Default is off.
-l List supported family names and models.
-b Segmented download of DLDxx.BIN files or the -f <file> if
specified.
-w SMARTClear Logs.
-f <file> Specify the filename prefix of the flash files.
This defaults to 'seaflash' if not provided. Filename
extensions '.fls', '.ovl', '.crt', and '.tbl' are
assumed.
-k <UID> Specify the unique descriptor to flash.
=====================================================================
fdl462a.upx also contains a list of supported chipsets:
=====================================================================
ATI 4379 ATI SB600-AHCI ATI SB600-RAID ATI SB700-AHCI ATI SB700-RAID
Promise PDC20246 Promise PDC20262 Promise PDC20266/PDC20267
Promise PDC20268 Promise PDC20270 Promise PDC20269 Promise PDC20318
Promise PDC20319 Promise PDC20375 Promise PDC20371 Promise PDC20376
Promise PDC40515 Promise 779 Promise PDC40519 Promise PDC20579
Promise PDC20571 Promise PDC20570 Promise PDC20573 Promise PDC20574
Promise PDC20575 Promise PDC40517 Promise PDC40518 Promise PDC81518
CMD PCI646U CMD PCI648 CMD PCI649 SiI 0680 SiI 3112 SiI 3124 SiI 3132
SiI 3512 ULi M1573 SATA RAID ULi M1575 SATA RAID HighPoint HPT366
Primary HighPoint HPT366 Secondary HighPoint HPT370 HighPoint HPT372A
HighPoint HPT302 HighPoint HPT371 HighPoint HPT374 ACard ATP865
Intel ICH5 Intel ICH5R Intel ICH6 Intel ICH6R Intel ICH6M
Intel ICH6MR Intel ESB2 Intel ESB2R Intel ICH7 Intel ICH7R
Intel ICH8 Intel ICH8R/ICH9R/ICH10R Intel ICH8-4 Intel ICH8M-AHCI
Intel ICH8M/9M-RAID Intel ICH9 Intel ICH9-4 Intel ICH9M Intel ICH10
AHCI Intel ICH10 RAID Intel ICH10 Secure AHCI Intel ICH10 Secure RAID
SiS 963 SiS SATA RAID 180 ServerWorks CSB5 ServerWorks Frodo
ServerWorks HT1000 VIA 8237 nVidia MCP/MCP-D nVidia MCP04
nVidia MCP04 SATA nVidia MCP-T nVidia nForce3 nVidia nForce3 SATA
nVidia nForce4 nVidia nForce4 SATA nVidia MCP51 PATA nVidia MCP51
SATA nVidia MCP55 SATA nVidia MCP73 SATA Marvell 88SX7042 SATA
Generic PCI ATA
=====================================================================
Ant
> ST31000340AS
> ST3750330AS
> ST3640330AS
> ST3500320AS
> - Franc Zabkar
--
"What, like I had to live with all those ants? Do you know what I did to
those ants? HoooHooo! No more ants!" --unknown
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
| |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net
Arno Wagner
[...]
> I asked about his "Then the bricking issue came to their attention. It
> took so long because it's an issue that's hard to track down - pretty
> much the journal or log space in the firmware is written to if certain
> events occur. IF the drive is powered down when there are 320 entries in
> this journal or log, then when it is powered back up, the drive errors
> out on init and won't boot properly - to the point that it won't even
> report it's information to the BIOS." comment and got this reply in
> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1098793&cid=26546311 ... "As far as
> I know, no. There may be a way using the controller some people have
> posted instructions on building, but your best bet would be just to
> watch the KB article like a hawk and update the firmware as soon as a
> good release is out."
> Is there a way to view and/or clear these journals/logs? Or is that only
> seen by Seagate? :(
Well, maxtorman speculates it is the selftest/error log. You can
add entries by running short SMART selftests (takes a few minutes).
and see whether the log rolls over.
Short SMART selftest on Linux: smartctl -t short -d ata <device>
Query logs: smartctl -a -d ata <device>
"-d ata" is not needed on very new kernels and must not be
given for IDE drives.
However the Seagate, Maxtor and Samsung drives I tried just
enumerate the selftest Log entries 1-21 and do not tell you
how many entries are in the log altogether, so this would be
flying blind. This is acceptable when trying to create the
error, but does not help at all when trying to avoid it.
Arno
Franc Zabkar
to keyboard and composed:
>Well, Seagate released another firmware and it's even worst for 500 GB
>users. It BRICKS it after the successful upgrades according to Seagate's
>forums.
For anyone who is intent on DIY data recovery, I saw this URL for
"SEAGATE FIRMWARE REPAIR 5.0" in one of the forums:
http://www.salvationdata.com/data-recovery-freewares/seagate-rapair.htm
It is claimed to be able to write and read the firmware in various
Seagate HDDs via the drive's serial RS232 diagnostic interface.
Unfortunately the demo version only supports the Barracuda VII series.
You will need to build a simple electronic circuit as well.
Ant
How can I do this under Windows XP Pro. SP3? I don't have Linux on this
PC.
Franc Zabkar
to keyboard and composed:
>> Short SMART selftest on Linux: smartctl -t short -d ata <device>
>> Query logs: smartctl -a -d ata <device>
>
>How can I do this under Windows XP Pro. SP3? I don't have Linux on this
>PC.
There is a Windows version of smartmontools here:
http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net/download.html
Ant
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 23:21:50 -0600, ANT...@zimage.com (Ant) put finger
> to keyboard and composed:
>
>>> Short SMART selftest on Linux: smartctl -t short -d ata <device>
>>> Query logs: smartctl -a -d ata <device>
>> How can I do this under Windows XP Pro. SP3? I don't have Linux on this
>> PC.
>
> There is a Windows version of smartmontools here:
> http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net/download.html
Oooh, thanks.
--
"I got worms! That's what we're going to call it. We're going to
specialize in selling worm farms. You know like ant farms. What's the
matter, a little tense about the flight?" --Lloyd Christmas (Dumb and
Dumber movie)
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Phil/Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
| |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net
Ant
> Previously Ant <ANT...@zimage.com> wrote:
> [...]
>> I asked about his "Then the bricking issue came to their attention. It
>> took so long because it's an issue that's hard to track down - pretty
>> much the journal or log space in the firmware is written to if certain
>> events occur. IF the drive is powered down when there are 320 entries in
>> this journal or log, then when it is powered back up, the drive errors
>> out on init and won't boot properly - to the point that it won't even
>> report it's information to the BIOS." comment and got this reply in
>> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1098793&cid=26546311 ... "As far as
>> I know, no. There may be a way using the controller some people have
>> posted instructions on building, but your best bet would be just to
>> watch the KB article like a hawk and update the firmware as soon as a
>> good release is out."
>
>> Is there a way to view and/or clear these journals/logs? Or is that only
>> seen by Seagate? :(
>
> Well, maxtorman speculates it is the selftest/error log. You can
> add entries by running short SMART selftests (takes a few minutes).
> and see whether the log rolls over.
>
> Short SMART selftest on Linux: smartctl -t short -d ata <device>
> Query logs: smartctl -a -d ata <device>
>
> "-d ata" is not needed on very new kernels and must not be
> given for IDE drives.
c:\winstuff\smartmontools\bin>smartctl -t short -a hdb
smartctl version 5.38 [i686-mingw32-xp-sp3] Copyright (C) 2002-8 Bruce Allen
Home page is http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net/
=== START OF INFORMATION SECTION ===
Model Family: Seagate Barracuda 7200.11
Device Model: ST3500320AS
Serial Number: 9QM8QPS1
Firmware Version: SD15
User Capacity: 500,107,862,016 bytes
Device is: In smartctl database [for details use: -P show]
ATA Version is: 8
ATA Standard is: ATA-8-ACS revision 4
Local Time is: Thu Jan 22 22:36:24 2009 PST
SMART support is: Available - device has SMART capability.
Enabled status cached by OS, trying SMART RETURN
STATUS cmd.
SMART support is: Enabled
=== START OF READ SMART DATA SECTION ===
SMART overall-health self-assessment test result: PASSED
General SMART Values:
Offline data collection status: (0x82) Offline data collection activity
was completed without error.
Auto Offline Data Collection:
Enabled.
Self-test execution status: ( 0) The previous self-test routine
completed
without error or no self-test
has ever
been run.
Total time to complete Offline
data collection: ( 650) seconds.
Offline data collection
capabilities: (0x7b) SMART execute Offline immediate.
Auto Offline data collection
on/off supp
ort.
Suspend Offline collection upon new
command.
Offline surface scan supported.
Self-test supported.
Conveyance Self-test supported.
Selective Self-test supported.
SMART capabilities: (0x0003) Saves SMART data before entering
power-saving mode.
Supports SMART auto save timer.
Error logging capability: (0x01) Error logging supported.
General Purpose Logging supported.
Short self-test routine
recommended polling time: ( 1) minutes.
Extended self-test routine
recommended polling time: ( 120) minutes.
Conveyance self-test routine
recommended polling time: ( 2) minutes.
SCT capabilities: (0x103b) SCT Status supported.
SCT Feature Control supported.
SCT Data Table supported.
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 116 099 006 Pre-fail
Always -
114339430
3 Spin_Up_Time 0x0003 094 094 000 Pre-fail
Always -
0
4 Start_Stop_Count 0x0032 100 100 020 Old_age
Always -
25
5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct 0x0033 100 100 036 Pre-fail
Always -
0
7 Seek_Error_Rate 0x000f 058 057 030 Pre-fail
Always -
12887499837
9 Power_On_Hours 0x0032 100 100 000 Old_age
Always -
513
10 Spin_Retry_Count 0x0013 100 100 097 Pre-fail
Always -
0
12 Power_Cycle_Count 0x0032 100 100 020 Old_age
Always -
25
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 100 100 000 Old_age Always
-
0
189 High_Fly_Writes 0x003a 100 100 000 Old_age Always
-
0
190 Airflow_Temperature_Cel 0x0022 067 048 045 Old_age Always
-
33 (Lifetime Min/Max 23/34)
194 Temperature_Celsius 0x0022 033 052 000 Old_age Always
-
33 (0 19 0 0)
195 Hardware_ECC_Recovered 0x001a 037 036 000 Old_age Always
-
114339430
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
SMART Error Log Version: 1
No Errors Logged
SMART Self-test log structure revision number 1
No self-tests have been logged. [To run self-tests, use: smartctl -t]
SMART Selective self-test log data structure revision number 1
SPAN MIN_LBA MAX_LBA CURRENT_TEST_STATUS
1 0 0 Not_testing
2 0 0 Not_testing
3 0 0 Not_testing
4 0 0 Not_testing
5 0 0 Not_testing
Selective self-test flags (0x0):
After scanning selected spans, do NOT read-scan remainder of disk.
If Selective self-test is pending on power-up, resume after 0 minute delay.
=== START OF OFFLINE IMMEDIATE AND SELF-TEST SECTION ===
Sending command: "Execute SMART Short self-test routine immediately in
off-line
mode".
Drive command "Execute SMART Short self-test routine immediately in
off-line mod
e" successful.
Testing has begun.
Please wait 1 minutes for test to complete.
Test will complete after Thu Jan 22 22:37:24 2009
Use smartctl -X to abort test.
So, where's the log? :(
--
"It's them!... Not THEM, the giant ants?!" --Girl and Crow
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Phil/Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
| |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net
Franc Zabkar
to keyboard and composed:
First let me say that new SD1A firmware has already been released:
http://seagate.custkb.com/seagate/crm/selfservice/search.jsp?DocId=207931
As for your other questions, I can't answer the one about SMART error
logs, but I'd just like to make an observation about your drive's raw
Seek Error Rate.
> 7 Seek_Error_Rate 0x000f 058 057 030 Pre-fail
>Always -
> 12887499837
Previously the attribute's value was as follows:
7 Seek Error Rate 60 30 8,592,185,153
After converting the old and new figures to hexadecimal we have ...
seek errors |--|
| |
8,592,185,153 = 0x000200225741
12,887,499,837 = 0x00030027A43D
| |
|------| total seeks
I believe that the uppermost 4 nibbles could represent the total
number of seek errors encountered by the HDD during its lifetime, and
the lowermost 8 nibbles represent the total number of seeks during the
same time. This would suggest that an acceptable seek error rate would
be around 1 error per million seeks. In your case the drive has
encountered 3 errors in total, one more since your first post.
I suspect that a new drive starts off with a SMART score of 60% and
this improves if the error rate falls below 1 per million, or worsens
if the error rate increases.
Here is a SMART report for my old 13GB Seagate drive:
http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/13GB.RPT
Applying the same analysis to this drive, we get a seek error rate of
5.6 errors per million. The value of the SER SMART attribute is 53%.
Here are the historical results for the above drive:
http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/SMART_13GB.XLS
At one point the uppermost bytes increment from 0x52E to 0x52F,
confirming that they have a special meaning.
The HDD in this forum post ...
... reports the following:
007 Seek Error Rate 055 053 007A02F83E9C 030
This equates to 2.5 errors per million and a SMART value of 55%.
Continuing in the same vein for other posts, we have ...
http://forums.seagate.com/stx/board/message?board.id=ata_drives&message.id=349&query.id=244952#M349
7 (07) Seek Error Rate 30 53 52 639978661187
5.2 errors per million, SMART value = 53% (compares very well with
the 13GB HDD above)
http://forums.seagate.com/stx/board/message?board.id=ata_drives&message.id=1384&query.id=244952#M1384
ST3500630SV: 07 000f 1e 28 28 00000ac20197da13
103 errors per million, SMART value = 40% (0x28)
http://forums.seagate.com/stx/board/message?board.id=SeaTool&message.id=279&query.id=244952#M279
(07) Seek Error Rate 61 54 30 7743057 Ok
0 errors per 7.7 million, SMART value = 61%
Ant
> First let me say that new SD1A firmware has already been released:
> http://seagate.custkb.com/seagate/crm/selfservice/search.jsp?DocId=207931
Cool! I will probably upgrade it later today or this weekend.
> As for your other questions, I can't answer the one about SMART error
> logs, but I'd just like to make an observation about your drive's raw
> Seek Error Rate.
Hmm, this looks bad. It seems to be getting worse? Or am I misreading
this? Is this related to the old firmware and HDD issues, and will the
newer firmware fix this? Or is this something else? :(
--
"This is what metaphor is. It is not saying that an ant is an elephant.
Perhaps; both are alive. No. Metaphor is saying the ant is an elephant.
Now, logically speaking, I know there is a difference. If you put
elephants and ants before me, I believe that every time I will correctly
identify the elephant and the ant. So metaphor must come from a very
different place than that of the logical, intelligent mind. It comes
from a place that is very courageous, willing to step out of our
preconceived ways of seeing things and open so large that it can see the
oneness in an ant and in an elephant." --Natalie Goldberg
Arno Wagner
Pretty much the same way, the smartmontools are available
as Windows commandline software.
Arno
Ant
Yep, got it from Franc's reply and I posted the results.
--
"Remember, ants are only waiting for you to die..." --unknown
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Phil/Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
| |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net
Franc Zabkar
to keyboard and composed:
>On 1/23/2009 12:54 AM PT, Franc Zabkar typed:
>> As for your other questions, I can't answer the one about SMART error
>> logs, but I'd just like to make an observation about your drive's raw
>> Seek Error Rate.
>
>Hmm, this looks bad. It seems to be getting worse? Or am I misreading
>this? Is this related to the old firmware and HDD issues, and will the
>newer firmware fix this? Or is this something else? :(
I don't think this is a problem at all, and I doubt that it would be
firmware related in any case. It appears that Seagate recognises that
all drives will exhibit some acceptable seek error rate, hence the
initial SMART value of 60%. Your current data suggest a SER of 1 error
in 800,000 seeks.
These are the data for my 120GB ST3120026A Seagate drive:
http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/120GB.RPT
Attribute ID Threshold Value Worst Raw
----------------------------------------------------------------
Seek Error Rate 7 30 79 60 00000580A6ACh
Notice that the initial SMART value was 60%, but after 92 million
(=0x580A6AC) error free seeks it is now 79%.
I would expect that higher density drives such as yours would
experience more seek errors due to a tighter track spacing, but that's
only a guess. In fact my analysis of Seagate's SMART statistics is
still only conjecture, but it seems consistent with all the data. I
wouldn't accept it as gospel, though.
I couldn't find any reference to seek error rate in the "Barracuda
7200.11 Serial ATA" product manual, but I found the following
references in the "Barracuda 18FC Disc Drive" product manual:
http://www.seagate.com/support/disc/manuals/fc/67524b.pdf
The acceptable SER for this model appears to be 0.1 errors per million
seeks. IIUC, the document confirms my analysis of the raw SER value.
=====================================================================
5.0 Reliability specifications
Seek error rate: Less than 10 errors in 10^8 seeks
=====================================================================
Determining rate
S.M.A.R.T. monitors the rate at which errors occur and signals a
predictive failure if the rate of degraded errors increases to an
unacceptable level. To determine rate, error events are logged and
compared to the number of total operations for a given attribute. The
interval defines the number of operations over which to measure the
rate. The counter that keeps track of the current number of operations
is referred to as the Interval Counter.
S.M.A.R.T. measures error rates. All errors for each monitored
attribute are recorded. A counter keeps track of the number of errors
for the current interval. This counter is referred to as the Failure
Counter.
Error rate is the number of errors per operation. The algorithm that
S.M.A.R.T. uses to record rates of error is to set thresholds for the
number of errors and their interval. If the number of errors exceeds
the threshold before the interval expires, the error rate is
considered to be unacceptable. If the number of errors does not exceed
the threshold before the interval expires, the error rate is
considered to be acceptable. In either case, the interval and failure
counters are reset and the process starts over.
Predictive failures
S.M.A.R.T. signals predictive failures when the drive is performing
unacceptably for a period of time. The firmware keeps a running count
of the number of times the error rate for each attribute is
unacceptable. To accomplish this, a counter is incremented each time
the error rate is unacceptable and decremented (not to exceed zero)
whenever the error rate is acceptable. If the counter continually
increments such that it reaches the predictive threshold, a predictive
failure is signaled. This counter is referred to as the Failure
History Counter. There is a separate Failure History Counter for each
attribute.
=====================================================================
Arno Wagner
> On 1/23/2009 12:54 AM PT, Franc Zabkar typed:
>> First let me say that new SD1A firmware has already been released:
>> http://seagate.custkb.com/seagate/crm/selfservice/search.jsp?DocId=207931
> Cool! I will probably upgrade it later today or this weekend.
>> As for your other questions, I can't answer the one about SMART error
>> logs, but I'd just like to make an observation about your drive's raw
>> Seek Error Rate.
> Hmm, this looks bad. It seems to be getting worse? Or am I misreading
> this? Is this related to the old firmware and HDD issues, and will the
> newer firmware fix this? Or is this something else? :(
I think it may actually be ok. Seek errors happen due to a number
of events like vibration, power spike, weak PSU and do not
necessarily indicate damage or even risk of damage. Unless you
see a sharp rise here (say, 1 in 1000 seeks fail), I would not
worry.
I also read the longer reply by Franc and agree to most of it.
Although I have invested far less time into this issue and
less experience with Seagate.
Arno
David Lesher
So iffen you have one of the afflicted drives; how do you go about
patching it? Is there some Windows utility?
If so, what do non-Windows folks do?
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Franc Zabkar
<wb8...@panix.com> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>So iffen you have one of the afflicted drives; how do you go about
>patching it? Is there some Windows utility?
>
>If so, what do non-Windows folks do?
Seagate supplies an ISO file which you burn to a CD-R. This is a
bootable FreeDOS image containing the flash loader and the firmware
file, among other things.
Alternatively, I have used ISObuster to extract the BootImage.img file
from the ISO. This is a 1,474,560 byte floppy drive image. I then used
FreeDOS's Diskcopy command to copy this bootable image to a floppy
diskette. I suppose Linux users would use the dd command to achieve
the same end.
Franc Zabkar
to keyboard and composed:
>Previously Ant <ANT...@zimage.com> wrote:
>> On 1/23/2009 12:54 AM PT, Franc Zabkar typed:
>
>>> As for your other questions, I can't answer the one about SMART error
>>> logs, but I'd just like to make an observation about your drive's raw
>>> Seek Error Rate.
>
>> Hmm, this looks bad. It seems to be getting worse? Or am I misreading
>> this? Is this related to the old firmware and HDD issues, and will the
>> newer firmware fix this? Or is this something else? :(
>
>I think it may actually be ok. Seek errors happen due to a number
>of events like vibration, power spike, weak PSU and do not
>necessarily indicate damage or even risk of damage. Unless you
>see a sharp rise here (say, 1 in 1000 seeks fail), I would not
>worry.
>
>I also read the longer reply by Franc and agree to most of it.
>Although I have invested far less time into this issue and
>less experience with Seagate.
>
>Arno
My only experience with Seagate drives is as an end user. I've been
fortunate (?!) in that I've had a dud drive to experiment with. That's
about it.
BTW, I suspect that the Read Error Rate and Hardware ECC Recovered
attributes may follow a similar format, in which case most drives
would have a zero error rate (the uppermost 4 nibbles are usually
zero).
Ant
recommended disconnecting them). Of course, I made backups before doing
this. So far everything is working. :)
Damn Seagate, fix your problems so we don't have to go through this again!
--
"When the people look like ants -- PULL. When the ants look like people
-- PRAY." --A skydiving quote
DevilsPGD
<fza...@iinternode.on.net> was claimed to have wrote:
>On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 01:44:10 +0000 (UTC), David Lesher
><wb8...@panix.com> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>
>>So iffen you have one of the afflicted drives; how do you go about
>>patching it? Is there some Windows utility?
>>
>>If so, what do non-Windows folks do?
>
>Seagate supplies an ISO file which you burn to a CD-R. This is a
>bootable FreeDOS image containing the flash loader and the firmware
>file, among other things.
>
>Alternatively, I have used ISObuster to extract the BootImage.img file
>from the ISO. This is a 1,474,560 byte floppy drive image. I then used
>FreeDOS's Diskcopy command to copy this bootable image to a floppy
>diskette. I suppose Linux users would use the dd command to achieve
>the same end.
I'd imagine Linux users would not, Linux users would do the same thing
as Windows users do, burn the ISO, boot from it and patch the drive as
needed.
No particular OS required, beyond the software needed to burn the ISO,
Seagate provides the OS.
Franc Zabkar
<Death...@crazyhat.net> put finger to keyboard and composed:
Sorry, something got lost in the translation. I offered a floppy
solution as an alternative to the CD-ROM solution, in which case dd
would have been the Linux alternative to diskcopy. By creating the
floppy, you can see the actual files. You also don't need to waste a
CD-R disc.
BTW, ISTR some peculiar posts in Seagate's forums where people have
been unable to boot from their CD-ROM ISO until they enabled the FDD
in the BIOS.
>No particular OS required, beyond the software needed to burn the ISO,
>Seagate provides the OS.
Yes, I understand.
David Lesher
>No particular OS required, beyond the software needed to burn the ISO,
>Seagate provides the OS.
But hardware to boot from the ISO is needed.
That rules out non-intel Macs at the least.
Franc Zabkar
to keyboard and composed:
>Previously Ant <ANT...@zimage.com> wrote:
>> On 1/23/2009 12:54 AM PT, Franc Zabkar typed:
>>> As for your other questions, I can't answer the one about SMART error
>>> logs, but I'd just like to make an observation about your drive's raw
>>> Seek Error Rate.
>
>> Hmm, this looks bad. It seems to be getting worse? Or am I misreading
>> this? Is this related to the old firmware and HDD issues, and will the
>> newer firmware fix this? Or is this something else? :(
>
>I think it may actually be ok. Seek errors happen due to a number
>of events like vibration, power spike, weak PSU and do not
>necessarily indicate damage or even risk of damage. Unless you
>see a sharp rise here (say, 1 in 1000 seeks fail), I would not
>worry.
I noticed this forum thread where the SER attribute has failed SMART:
http://stx.lithium.com/stx/board/message?board.id=ata_drives&thread.id=2285
7 Seek_Error_Rate 0x000f 030 030 030 Pre-fail Always
FAILING_NOW 8890584769423
The raw value of 8890584769423 = 0x08160025a38f
This represents a seek error rate of ...
0x816 / 0x25a38f = 0.000839176828 = 839 seek errors per million
That's 1 error in about 1200 seeks, so your guess was very close.
Arno Wagner
Pure random chance ;-)
Arno
Franc Zabkar
<fza...@iinternode.on.net> put finger to keyboard and composed:
Is it possible that the SER attribute is logarithmic?
90% = < 1 error per 1000 million seeks
80% = < 1 error per 100 million
70% = < 1 error per 10 million
60% = < 1 error per million
50% = 10 errors per million
40% = 100 errors per million
30% = 1000 errors per million
Arno Wagner
Would make sense. Linear scale would give pretty bad resolution in
most cases here.
Arno
Franc Zabkar
to keyboard and composed:
>Previously Franc Zabkar <fza...@iinternode.on.net> wrote:
>> Is it possible that the SER attribute is logarithmic?
>
>> 90% = < 1 error per 1000 million seeks
>> 80% = < 1 error per 100 million
>> 70% = < 1 error per 10 million
>> 60% = < 1 error per million
>> 50% = 10 errors per million
>> 40% = 100 errors per million
>> 30% = 1000 errors per million
>
>Would make sense. Linear scale would give pretty bad resolution in
>most cases here.
>
>Arno
After looking at more SMART data, I believe that during the early life
of the drive when a statistical average is being accumulated, the data
may not be meaningful, in which case the SMART values of "rate"
attributes are flagged as 253 (0xFD).
Here is one such example:
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies-archive.cfm/811449.html
(07) Seek Error Rate 100 253 30 576461
(09) Power On Hours Count 100 100 0 3
(01) Raw Read Error Rate 100 253 6 0
(C3) Hardware ECC Recovered 66 64 0 220661454
Another peculiarity is that reallocated sectors don't necessarily
generate read errors, assuming the Raw Read Error Rate attribute is
encoded in a similar fashion to the SER.
Here is a SMART report for my old Seagate 13GB HDD:
http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/13GB.RPT
Raw Read Error Rate 1 0 79 78 00000753BA8Eh
Reallocated Sector Count 5 36 98 98 000000000077h
Seek Error Rate 7 30 53 38 052E0E3000ECh
My understanding is that the total number of read errors is zero.
The following historical analysis for the same drive would suggest
that seek errors are not related to the RSC either:
http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/SMART_13GB.XLS