Finally back in town again and back to Palimpsest. A little background first. My box is a Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield at 2.4GHz, Asus P5K mobo, 6GB core, XFX GeForce 8600 video card and two hard drive drawers. For OS, Grub1 multi-booting Fedora 15, 16, 17β, Win-XP and Win-7. By January 2011, Fedora 14 reported for the Maxtor 320GB drive: “DISK HAS MANY BAD SECTORS Age: 136.0 days PwrCycles: 1285 Bad sectors: -4”, with a recommendation for immediate back-up and replacement. At that time a Seagate ST1000 1TB drive was installed internally in the box and partitioned to accept various data partitions and a Fedora OS to be used as a back-up OS. The system normally operates from one of the OSs in a drive slipped in one of the drive drawers. All data in the Maxtor 320GB was moved to the Seagate drive and is periodically imaged to another external drive via a drawer. The Maxtor 320 GB drive was imaged to a new WD 320GB drive for back-up. The Maxtor was kept in service to see when it would fail. So far it has not! What has changed in F-17β from F-14,F-15 and F-16 to change the report to OK with 0 bad sectors. All three previous Fedoras still report for the disk as of today: “DISK HAS MANY BAD SECTORS Age: 248.3 days PwrCycles: 3370 Bad sectors: -4”. This amounts to 2695.2 hours and 2085 power cycles: since the first warning. A Samsung 160GB that was removed from service o 2010-11-07 at age: 90.7 days with 1115 power cycles and 12 bad sectors, shows under F-14, F-15 and F-16 “ Disk has a few bad sectors” . With F-17β it shows “ Disk is OK Age: 104.7 days Power Cycles: 1271 Bad Sectors: 12 Pending Sectors: 0” hdtune-224 in Windows XP reports the Maxtor as OK. My question is one of trust, which one is accurate? However, I am inclined to believe that is the way Maxtor reports the parameter in question. Thanks to all, Cheers. ----- Original Message ----- On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 13:35 -0400, ergodic wrote: > Has anyone experienced Palimpsest discrepancies? > > Palimsest in Fedora 16 reports a disk (MAXTOR STM3320620AS) as > failing: "DISK HAS MANY BAD SECTORS" etc. > SMART: 197 Current pending Sector Count Value -4 sectors. > > Palimsest in Fedora 17 beta reports the same disk (MAXTOR > STM3320620AS) as "OK" > SMART: 197 Current pending Sector Count 0 sectors OK. > > Obviously one is incorrect, which one? Interpretation of the SMART data can be tricky. There's a longstanding bug where palimpsest considers numbers of 'bad' sectors that are well within manufacturers' tolerances to indicate a failing disk: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=498115 and it's possible you hit that in F16 and it's been corrected, at least for your particular disk, in F17. That '-4' does seem odd, though, as another poster mentioned. The bug report linked above has some useful diagnostic steps you can take. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
