On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 09:28:46AM -0700, JD wrote:
> I tried to file for an rma, but the serial num and the part num
> were unrecognizable by the support site. Strange!!
> I had mistakenly stated that the drive was a WD. It is actually
> a seagate, and the seagate site did not recognize the serial
On 06/20/2010 08:43 AM, Richard Shaw was caught red-handed while writing::
> On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 1:16 AM, Kam Leo wrote:
>
>> You don't have to take smartd's word about the health of your drive.
>> Run the manufacturer's diagnostic.
>>
> May not make a difference. I'm not sure about
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 1:16 AM, Kam Leo wrote:
> You don't have to take smartd's word about the health of your drive.
> Run the manufacturer's diagnostic.
May not make a difference. I'm not sure about all manufacturers, but
on many consumer level drives the manufacturer software just checks
smar
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 06:41:13AM -0700, JD wrote:
> Well, I'm hoping that WD will send me a replacement.
> It's still under 3 years of age.
You can check the warranty status of any drive at:
http://support.wdc.com/warranty/index.asp?wdc_lang=en
They've been very good about replacing drives s
On 06/20/2010 06:29 AM, Dave Ihnat was caught red-handed while writing::
> On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 12:00:59AM -0700, JD wrote:
>
>
>> So, it is not clear that fsck will detect new
>> bad blocks.
>>
> Man 'badblocks'. Note, from the manpage:
>
>"...it is strongly recommended that us
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 12:00:59AM -0700, JD wrote:
> So, it is not clear that fsck will detect new
> bad blocks.
Man 'badblocks'. Note, from the manpage:
"...it is strongly recommended that users not run badblocks directly,
but rather use the -c option of the e2fsck and mke2fs programs."
> I thought fsck simply checks the metadata
> of the filesystem, free blocks and allocated
> blocks, cylinder groups, inodes...etc.
>
> So, it is not clear that fsck will detect new
> bad blocks.
Yep
cat /dev/sdwhatever >/dev/null
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscr
On 06/19/2010 11:16 PM, Kam Leo was caught red-handed while writing::
> On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 9:56 PM, Peter Langfelder
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 9:04 PM, JD wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Well, I am not actively using the disk. Too risky.
>>> I am trying to find ou
On 06/19/2010 09:56 PM, Peter Langfelder was caught red-handed while
writing::
> On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 9:04 PM, JD wrote:
>
>>
>
>> Well, I am not actively using the disk. Too risky.
>> I am trying to find out if there is reasonable doubt
>> as to what the smartd is reporting as
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 9:56 PM, Peter Langfelder
wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 9:04 PM, JD wrote:
>>
>
>> Well, I am not actively using the disk. Too risky.
>> I am trying to find out if there is reasonable doubt
>> as to what the smartd is reporting as if the are recent
>> errors.
>> At this
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 9:04 PM, JD wrote:
>
> Well, I am not actively using the disk. Too risky.
> I am trying to find out if there is reasonable doubt
> as to what the smartd is reporting as if the are recent
> errors.
> At this point I will try to see if it is still
> under warranty and have i
On 06/19/2010 08:43 PM, Peter Langfelder was caught red-handed while
writing::
> On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 7:57 PM, JD wrote:
>
>
>> Is there a way to tell smart daemon to ignore the bad sector list
>> that comes from the manufacturer?
>> smartd keep reporting:
>> messages:Jun 19 16:16:39 loc
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 7:57 PM, JD wrote:
> Is there a way to tell smart daemon to ignore the bad sector list
> that comes from the manufacturer?
> smartd keep reporting:
> messages:Jun 19 16:16:39 localhost smartd[1378]: Device: /dev/sdb [SAT],
> 128 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors
> mes
On 06/19/2010 03:01 PM, Alan Cox was caught red-handed while writing::
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 11:43:19 -0700
> JD wrote:
>
>
>> Greetings,
>> I have a 500GB hd which smarts daemon says has 1 re-mapped sector, and
>> 129 bad sectors.
>> How is it possible to have 129 bad sectors, but only 1 re
On 06/19/2010 03:01 PM, Alan Cox was caught red-handed while writing::
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 11:43:19 -0700
> JD wrote:
>
>
>> Greetings,
>> I have a 500GB hd which smarts daemon says has 1 re-mapped sector, and
>> 129 bad sectors.
>> How is it possible to have 129 bad sectors, but only 1 re
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 11:43:19 -0700
JD wrote:
> Greetings,
> I have a 500GB hd which smarts daemon says has 1 re-mapped sector, and
> 129 bad sectors.
> How is it possible to have 129 bad sectors, but only 1 re-mapped sector?
> Did the HD have only 1 spare sector when I purchased it?
> Is that po
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 11:43:19 -0700,
JD wrote:
> Greetings,
> I have a 500GB hd which smarts daemon says has 1 re-mapped sector,
> and 129 bad sectors.
> How is it possible to have 129 bad sectors, but only 1 re-mapped sector?
> Did the HD have only 1 spare sector when I purchased it?
> Is th
Greetings,
I have a 500GB hd which smarts daemon says has 1 re-mapped sector, and
129 bad sectors.
How is it possible to have 129 bad sectors, but only 1 re-mapped sector?
Did the HD have only 1 spare sector when I purchased it?
Is that possible?
Drive was purchased brand new in factory sealed b
18 matches
Mail list logo
