For all those with very large counts of bad sectors (i.e. >1000) take a look at my comment here: http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25772#c2
Basically it looks like the manufacturers are using the raw value in a different way. i.e. the 48 bit value is likely split into 3 x 16bit values that are least significant byte first. (It could be 6 x 8bit values, but I suspect not, as 256 would probably be too low - anyone know how many are normally made available for reallocations?) >From Jose Mirco's collection of Hitachi drives: 0x01000F000000 65551 0x010007000000 65543 0x07002E000000 458798 0x050011000000 327697 0xB4001D000000 1900724 This would tie up with my old IBM/Hitachi in my comment linked above. The fact is that minus specs from manufacturers this raw value can obviously not be relied upon, and to do so is a FAIL! If I had to hazard a guess for the first of the ones above: 0100 = 0x0001 = 1: probably equals the event count of attribute 196. 0F00 = 0x000F = 15: is the number of bad sectors i.e. there was one event where the disk found 15 bad sectors The last one doesn't make so much sense though: B400 = 0x00B4 = 180 1D00 = 0x001D = 29 i.e. there were 180 events where a total of 29 bad sectors were found?!? So perhaps we can't even rely on consistency within a brand. -- palimpsest bad sectors false positive https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/438136 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
