On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 06:50:11PM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote: > Gregory Nowak wrote: > >According to the above, I would say only sda and sdb are bad, sda > >being the worst of the two. I stand to be corrected as always. > > > > > > Yeah - that's what it looks like to me as well (having gotten back > to a screen other than my smartphone).
I hope that supplier I got this drives from will be willing to replace them on basis of this results. Anyway, since it's RAID, they can be only replaced one by one. One question: how do you handle replacements like this? If supplier is willing to replace bad drives, it is necessary to return bad ones, but data on those drives are not intended to be seen by third parties. > It also looks like those drives are pretty old: > >40 Head_Flying_Hours 0x0000 100 253 000 Old_age Offline > > - 174414326932768 > >241 Total_LBAs_Written 0x0000 100 253 000 Old_age Offline > > - 23166370191361 > >242 Total_LBAs_Read 0x0000 100 253 000 Old_age Offline > > - 174661697951516 They work 24/7 for more than a year (over 400 days). That's not really old. My WD desktop drive have 3.2 years of Power_On_Hours but with Raw_Read_Error_Rate=0, Reallocated_Sector_Ct=0 and Seek_Error_Rate=0. Regards, Veljko -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
