1

I have done full write and read on this new hard drive and then run smart long test.

This is a 3.5 inch 4T hard drive.

Some of the results:

=== START OF INFORMATION SECTION ===
Model Family:     Seagate Barracuda 3.5
Device Model:     ST4000DM004-2CV104

ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME          FLAG     VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE      UPDATED  WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE
  5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct   0x0033   100   100   010    Pre-fail  Always       -       0
195 Hardware_ECC_Recovered  0x001a   081   067   000    Old_age   Always       -       136869720
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

Num  Test_Description    Status                  Remaining  LifeTime(hours)  LBA_of_first_error
# 1  Extended offline    Completed without error       00%        41         -

Hardware_ECC_Recovered is pretty high. Should I return this new drive?

Thanks a lot.

PS: more smart result:

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   081   067   006    Pre-fail  Always       -       136869720
  3 Spin_Up_Time            0x0003   097   096   000    Pre-fail  Always       -       0
  4 Start_Stop_Count        0x0032   100   100   020    Old_age   Always       -       22
  5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct   0x0033   100   100   010    Pre-fail  Always       -       0
  7 Seek_Error_Rate         0x000f   070   060   045    Pre-fail  Always       -       9131835
  9 Power_On_Hours          0x0032   100   100   000    Old_age   Always       -       43 (109 159 0)
 10 Spin_Retry_Count        0x0013   100   100   097    Pre-fail  Always       -       0
 12 Power_Cycle_Count       0x0032   100   100   020    Old_age   Always       -       14
183 Runtime_Bad_Block       0x0032   100   100   000    Old_age   Always       -       0
184 End-to-End_Error        0x0032   100   100   099    Old_age   Always       -       0
187 Reported_Uncorrect      0x0032   100   100   000    Old_age   Always       -       0
188 Command_Timeout         0x0032   100   099   000    Old_age   Always       -       1 1 1
189 High_Fly_Writes         0x003a   100   100   000    Old_age   Always       -       0
190 Airflow_Temperature_Cel 0x0022   064   059   040    Old_age   Always       -       36 (Min/Max 32/40)
191 G-Sense_Error_Rate      0x0032   100   100   000    Old_age   Always       -       0
192 Power-Off_Retract_Count 0x0032   100   100   000    Old_age   Always       -       8
193 Load_Cycle_Count        0x0032   100   100   000    Old_age   Always       -       25
194 Temperature_Celsius     0x0022   036   041   000    Old_age   Always       -       36 (0 31 0 0 0)
195 Hardware_ECC_Recovered  0x001a   081   067   000    Old_age   Always       -       136869720
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      -       38h+39m+55.493s
241 Total_LBAs_Written      0x0000   100   253   000    Old_age   Offline      -       8642666790
242 Total_LBAs_Read         0x0000   100   253   000    Old_age   Offline      -       7856270391
sgon00
  • 347
  • 1
  • 2
  • 14
  • 1
    Whilst SMART values can't be interpreted as 100% predictors of failure, those values would be more typical of a disk that is several years old. I would return it - if possible. The problem is that it hasn't actually died yet. – Jeremy Boden Jul 07 '21 at 13:13
  • @JeremyBoden Thanks a lot for the reply. I will try to return it then. – sgon00 Jul 07 '21 at 14:33
  • @JeremyBoden By reading [link1](https://serverfault.com/questions/313649/how-to-interpret-this-smartctl-smartmon-data), [link2](http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/HDD/Seagate_SER_RRER_HEC.html), [link3](https://yksi.ml/). Although I don't fully understand those links, but it seems I can ignore the values in `Hardware_ECC_Recovered`, `Raw_Read_Error_Rate`, and `Seek_Error_Rate `? People say even seagate new drive will have high values. One thing I am sure is those values are zero before doing full read/write tests. Thanks. – sgon00 Jul 07 '21 at 15:04
  • link1: "We have a linux server that has been in heavy use for 3 years." link2: quotes the stats for his 13GB hard drive. I don't understand why Seagate would inflate the apparent error rates artificially. At least increase the frequency of your backups. – Jeremy Boden Jul 07 '21 at 15:34
  • @JeremyBoden But by using the python calculation and link3's calculation, the three numbers here mean 0 error. Seagate just records Read and Seek operations. If those numbers are just normal operation numbers, then it means there is no problem of the new drive. I am not sure if what they say in those links are correct or not though. – sgon00 Jul 07 '21 at 16:10

0 Answers0