On Mar 07, 2025, David wrote: > On Mon, 3 Mar 2025 at 10:03, Dan Purgert <d...@djph.net> wrote: > > On Mar 02, 2025, Eben King wrote: > > > > [...] > > > ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE UPDATED > > > WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE > > > 1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 0x000f 082 064 006 Pre-fail > > > Always - 146369262 > > > > 146 million read-errors. > > > 7 Seek_Error_Rate 0x000f 084 060 045 Pre-fail > > > Always - 232382570 > > > > 230 million seek errors > > > 9 Power_On_Hours 0x0032 093 093 000 Old_age > > > Always - 6346h+20m+46.297s > > > > ~9 years on-time > > > > > 195 Hardware_ECC_Recovered 0x001a 082 064 000 Old_age > > > Always - 146369262 > > > > Well, at least those read errors were all corrected ;) > > > > None of the first three bits are absolute proof that the drive is going, > > but they're certainly cause for suspicion. > > I see no cause for concern in that data. > > The wikipedia page [1] regarding "1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate" says: > The raw value has different structure for different vendors and is often > not meaningful as a decimal number. For some drives, this number > may increase during normal operation without necessarily signifying errors.
I've never seen spinning rust just increase read-errors for no reason, but since they were all ECC corrected, it's less concerning. > [...] > Why do you write that the "9 Power_On_Hours" data represents > "~9 years on-time"? It looks to me that it says 6346 hours. > There are 365 * 24 = 8760 hours / year. > So 6346 hours is less than one year. Yeah, that's my bad, I read it as 63k hours. -- |_|O|_| |_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert |O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
