I have A Maxtor 120Gig IDE...after 18 months of home 6 hour per day
use as the XP system disk.
On a number of occasions it would suddenly freeze
with a few loud clicks until the sys. was restarted ..when a few files
were
found to
be damaged...eventually this damaged some system files & I have had
to get another disk & reinstall everything (not fun !)
This failure was due I have decided, because the drive was positioned
so as
to overheat .
...in a corner of the comp. on top of the DVD burner.
The SMART tester I run shows all the checks as OK except for
"Re-allocated Sector Count" shown as fail..I have Low Level re-
formatted
it with the same SMART test results afterwards .
I'm loath to through it out ..& as it is now as a general purpose 2nd
ary
drive its not done the big click & freeze thing ...I currently have
VISTA
on it just to try VISTA out ..
Should I be sensible & just chuck it ?? It's noisyer than should be
but I have other drives which have had much longer , harder use & seem
fine.
What does the only SMART fail "Re-allocated Sector Count" mean ??
Where can I find an explanation of the SMART codes ???
Thanks Mouse
@@@
So tempted not to reply to the rest of the post...
> What does the only SMART fail "Re-allocated Sector Count" mean ??
The re-allocated sector count is the number of sectors on the HD that
have been detected as bad and remapped. A SMART fail probably means that
you have a good few hundred bad sectors, and this usually gets worse.
In article <5709uuF2bcp1bU1@mid.individual.net>, John Jordan junk@jaj22.org.uk says...
> Trimble wrote:
> >
> > I have A Maxtor 120Gig IDE...
>
> Oh, just throw it away :-)
>
> So tempted not to reply to the rest of the post...
Stop it, this machine's running an 80GB Maxtor. :-) I wonder if the
60/120GB models used platters that weren't good enough for the 80/160GB
models.
>
> > What does the only SMART fail "Re-allocated Sector Count" mean ??
>
> The re-allocated sector count is the number of sectors on the HD that
> have been detected as bad and remapped. A SMART fail probably means that
> you have a good few hundred bad sectors,
I'd have though it meant it had run out of spare sectors to remap.
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 23:53:18 +0100, John Jordan
<junk@jaj22.org.uk> wrote:
>Trimble wrote:
>>
>> I have A Maxtor 120Gig IDE...
>
>Oh, just throw it away :-)
Don't be a dumbass, statisically speaking, the failure rate
is not enough to abandon a drive unless there are typical
symptoms of a problem.
>
>So tempted not to reply to the rest of the post...
>
>> What does the only SMART fail "Re-allocated Sector Count" mean ??
>
>The re-allocated sector count is the number of sectors on the HD that
>have been detected as bad and remapped. A SMART fail probably means that
>you have a good few hundred bad sectors, and this usually gets worse.
>
>Save yourself a lot of hassle and dump it.
Save yourself the bother and quit pretending that bashing a
line of drives implies knowledge. The FACT is, the sheer
number of drives out in the field from OEMs, will make
certain makes and models have higher problem reports without
it being a higher actual problem rate.
This coming from someone who has over a dozen Maxtors
spinning right now and no higher failure rate than other
makes, models. A dozen is actually being conservative,
bashing any certain model is not useful untill you can
attribute a failure to a particular fault point. IF you can
do so, please share that information. Otherwise you are
only a silly troll.
kony wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 23:53:18 +0100, John Jordan
> <junk@jaj22.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>Trimble wrote:
>>
>>>I have A Maxtor 120Gig IDE...
>>
>>Oh, just throw it away :-)
>
> Don't be a dumbass, statisically speaking, the failure rate
> is not enough to abandon a drive unless there are typical
> symptoms of a problem.
<sigh> I remember now. No joking in alt.comp.hardware.
Well, I'd strongly advise ditching any late-model Quantum or Fujitsu
drive that's still (remarkably) running unless you really don't value
your installation, as virtually every one of these drives I've seen in a
customer's PC has later died.
I wouldn't go that far with the Maxtors, but the plus-8 and plus-9
drives certainly do have a much higher than average failure rate, unless
they make up >90% of drives sold in my area in the last five years.
The OP's failure mode is very common with the plus-9s. They last 12-24
months, and then rapidly accumulate bad sectors. I'm not entirely sure
what happens after that, because I replace them at that point.
On Mar 28, 8:43 pm, kony <s...@spam.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 23:53:18 +0100, John Jordan
>
> <j...@jaj22.org.uk> wrote:
> >Trimble wrote:
>
> >> I have A Maxtor 120Gig IDE...
>
> >Oh, just throw it away :-)
>
> Don't be a dumbass, statisically speaking, the failure rate
> is not enough to abandon a drive unless there are typical
> symptoms of a problem.
>
>
I would be interested in the source of those statistics. As the ones
collected by Google tell quite a a different story.
>
> >So tempted not to reply to the rest of the post...
>
> >> What does the only SMART fail "Re-allocated Sector Count" mean ??
>
> >The re-allocated sector count is the number of sectors on the HD that
> >have been detected as bad and remapped. A SMART fail probably means that
> >you have a good few hundred bad sectors, and this usually gets worse.
>
> >Save yourself a lot of hassle and dump it.
>
> Save yourself the bother and quit pretending that bashing a
> line of drives implies knowledge. The FACT is, the sheer
> number of drives out in the field from OEMs, will make
> certain makes and models have higher problem reports without
> it being a higher actual problem rate.
>
> This coming from someone who has over a dozen Maxtors
> spinning right now and no higher failure rate than other
> makes, models. A dozen is actually being conservative,
> bashing any certain model is not useful untill you can
> attribute a failure to a particular fault point. IF you can
> do so, please share that information. Otherwise you are
> only a silly troll.
"John Jordan" <junk@jaj22.org.uk> wrote in message
news:5709uuF2bcp1bU1@mid.individual.net...
>> What does the only SMART fail "Re-allocated Sector Count" mean ??
>
> The re-allocated sector count is the number of sectors on the HD that have
> been detected as bad and remapped. A SMART fail probably means that you
> have a good few hundred bad sectors, and this usually gets worse.
>
> Save yourself a lot of hassle and dump it.
>
Nah....
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:i2dm03h4oq3lq2hui25v5n9tku5efftloi@4ax.com
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 23:53:18 +0100, John Jordan
> <junk@jaj22.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Trimble wrote:
>>>
>>> I have A Maxtor 120Gig IDE...
>>
>> Oh, just throw it away :-)
>
> Don't be a dumbass, statisically speaking, the failure rate
> is not enough to abandon a drive unless there are typical
> symptoms of a problem.
Typical symptoms of a problem would be a clicking noise accompanied by a
SMART message saying the re-allocated sector count has been exceeded. Only
a "dumbass" would ignore such signs of imminent failure. "Throw it away"
(after recovering data) is good advice - any data on the disk will be at
high risk of total loss.
"Odie Ferrous" <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:460B5B7F.5FBEE624@hotmail.com...
> Trimble wrote:
>>
>> @@@@
>>
>
>> with a few loud clicks
>
> That alone is sufficient reason to replace the drive.
Naw... Just zero the drive and run the manufacturers utilities on it for an
extended period. Toss it if it can't even do this.
Don't use it for anything important, maybe for testing fresh OS installs or
as a dedicated swapspace drive.
>
> "Odie Ferrous" <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:460B5B7F.5FBEE624@hotmail.com...
>> Trimble wrote:
>>>
>>> @@@@
>>>
>>
>>> with a few loud clicks
>>
>> That alone is sufficient reason to replace the drive.
>
> Naw... Just zero the drive and run the manufacturers utilities on it for
> an extended period. Toss it if it can't even do this.
I agree - we recovered many IBM Deathstars (yeah, the Hungarian ones) like
this (IBM disk utility) and a fair percentage became/remained viable for
desktop use in a server based environment (ie no important data on desktop
machine at all).
>
> Don't use it for anything important, maybe for testing fresh OS installs
> or as a dedicated swapspace drive.
Indeed. I would write "dodgey" on it and never ever *rely* on it for
anything important ever again. Expect it to drop dead, if you (the OP) gets
some milage out of it, then that's a bonus, but otherwise, best pretend
it's half dead IMO after the symptoms it's shown.
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 05:08:04 +0100, John Jordan
<junk@jaj22.org.uk> wrote:
>kony wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 23:53:18 +0100, John Jordan
>> <junk@jaj22.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Trimble wrote:
>>>
>>>>I have A Maxtor 120Gig IDE...
>>>
>>>Oh, just throw it away :-)
>>
>> Don't be a dumbass, statisically speaking, the failure rate
>> is not enough to abandon a drive unless there are typical
>> symptoms of a problem.
>
><sigh> I remember now. No joking in alt.comp.hardware.
Sorry, I was pretty steamed at someone else at the time of
posting that, the remark was uncalled for.
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 08:03:23 +0100, "TMack"
<REMOVETHECAPStonymackin@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:i2dm03h4oq3lq2hui25v5n9tku5efftloi@4ax.com
>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 23:53:18 +0100, John Jordan
>> <junk@jaj22.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Trimble wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I have A Maxtor 120Gig IDE...
>>>
>>> Oh, just throw it away :-)
>>
>> Don't be a dumbass, statisically speaking, the failure rate
>> is not enough to abandon a drive unless there are typical
>> symptoms of a problem.
>
>Typical symptoms of a problem would be a clicking noise accompanied by a
>SMART message saying the re-allocated sector count has been exceeded. Only
>a "dumbass" would ignore such signs of imminent failure. "Throw it away"
>(after recovering data) is good advice - any data on the disk will be at
>high risk of total loss.
Note the "throw it away" advice was prior to indication,
addressing of any problem. Certainly once a drive has signs
of impending failure it should not be used any longer.
"Rob Morley" <nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.207520791e30aa8198ac5e@news.individual.ne t...
> In article <5709uuF2bcp1bU1@mid.individual.net>, John Jordan
> junk@jaj22.org.uk says...
>> Trimble wrote:
>> >
>> > I have A Maxtor 120Gig IDE...
>>
>> Oh, just throw it away :-)
>>
>> So tempted not to reply to the rest of the post...
>
> Stop it, this machine's running an 80GB Maxtor. :-) I wonder if the
> 60/120GB models used platters that weren't good enough for the 80/160GB
> models.
>>
The Maxtor D740X was the fastest and quietest drive of its time, and made
before Maxtors had problems. Is yours a D740X? I have two that have been
perfect for the last 5+ years of constant use.
"Trimble" <hughwb@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:1175117753.847452.256940@p77g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...
> @@@@
>
> I have A Maxtor 120Gig IDE...after 18 months of home 6 hour per day
> use as the XP system disk.
> On a number of occasions it would suddenly freeze
> with a few loud clicks until the sys. was restarted ..when a few files
> were
> found to
> be damaged...eventually this damaged some system files & I have had
> to get another disk & reinstall everything (not fun !)
>
> This failure was due I have decided, because the drive was positioned
> so as
> to overheat .
> ..in a corner of the comp. on top of the DVD burner.
>
> The SMART tester I run shows all the checks as OK except for
> "Re-allocated Sector Count" shown as fail..I have Low Level re-
> formatted
> it with the same SMART test results afterwards .
>
*any* SMART error is sufficient to justify *never* using the driver again...
check the warranty though...you may be eligible for a replacement
Trust No OneŽ wrote:
> "John Jordan" <junk@jaj22.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:5709uuF2bcp1bU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>>> What does the only SMART fail "Re-allocated Sector Count" mean ??
>> The re-allocated sector count is the number of sectors on the HD that have
>> been detected as bad and remapped. A SMART fail probably means that you
>> have a good few hundred bad sectors, and this usually gets worse.
>>
>> Save yourself a lot of hassle and dump it.
>>
> Nah....
>
> Put it up on Ebay as "untested"
>
> Someone will surely bite.
>
> :)
>
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 16:30:10 +0100, Mike Tomlinson
<mike@jasper.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <570sd4F2b17aiU1@mid.individual.net>, John Jordan
><junk@jaj22.org.uk> writes
>
>>The OP's failure mode is very common with the plus-9s. They last 12-24
>>months, and then rapidly accumulate bad sectors.
>
>Agreed, my experience too, from an installed base of several dozen.
It is odd you have such an experience? To me at least, mine
still work fine but I tended to buy them with only one
platter per, is that what you have/had?
In article <d44t03lu4v58e5pb57adqr3svdqqgbs8sd@4ax.com>, kony
<spam@spam.com> writes
>It is odd you have such an experience?
Really? University department, many makes and models of drive
installed. Maxtors gave me the most grief (I say gave, cos my supplier
knows not to fit them to my computers any more :)
> To me at least, mine
>still work fine but I tended to buy them with only one
>platter per, is that what you have/had?
No idea. Mostly DiamondMax plus 9 120/160GB.
--
(\__/)
(='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste Bunny into your
(")_(") signature to help him gain world domination.
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
> In article <d44t03lu4v58e5pb57adqr3svdqqgbs8sd@4ax.com>, kony
> <spam@spam.com> writes
>
>>To me at least, mine
>>still work fine but I tended to buy them with only one
>>platter per, is that what you have/had?
>
> No idea. Mostly DiamondMax plus 9 120/160GB.
Mostly plus-9 80/120GB and plus-8 30/40GB here, home & small business
callouts. I didn't buy any of the plus-9s myself, but four out of six
plus-8s I installed are now dead. A wide range of different failure
modes on those, strangely enough.
I don't think the plus-8s were used by any major OEMs, but you often see
them in machines from small suppliers.
In article <V5OdnYjxwrKIc5bbRVnyhwA@bt.com>, Synapse Syndrome synapse@NOSPAMgomez404.elitemail.org says...
> "Rob Morley" <nospam@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.207520791e30aa8198ac5e@news.individual.ne t...
> > In article <5709uuF2bcp1bU1@mid.individual.net>, John Jordan
> > junk@jaj22.org.uk says...
> >> Trimble wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I have A Maxtor 120Gig IDE...
> >>
> >> Oh, just throw it away :-)
> >>
> >> So tempted not to reply to the rest of the post...
> >
> > Stop it, this machine's running an 80GB Maxtor. :-) I wonder if the
> > 60/120GB models used platters that weren't good enough for the 80/160GB
> > models.
> >>
>
>
> The Maxtor D740X was the fastest and quietest drive of its time, and made
> before Maxtors had problems. Is yours a D740X?
It's a DiamondMax Plus 9 (6Y080P0), a bit over three years old I think.
So at least it's lasted twice as long as the Deathstar it replaced.
I'm the OP ...Thanks for all the responses.
But can some one give a site that explains the SMART codes .
What they mean & how to interpret them.
All I see when I run a diagnostic prog. is a lot of numbers & either FAIL or
OK
..Surly I can tell the state of the drive before some check has reached the
Fail state ??
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") Mouse
In article <eur9bf$74p$1@aioe.org>, Trimble says...
> I'm the OP ...Thanks for all the responses.
> But can some one give a site that explains the SMART codes .
> What they mean & how to interpret them.
> All I see when I run a diagnostic prog. is a lot of numbers & either FAIL or
> OK
> .Surly I can tell the state of the drive before some check has reached the
> Fail state ??
No. SMART only reports when a fail has been detected.
--
Conor
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright
until you hear them speak.........
Trimble wrote:
> I'm the OP ...Thanks for all the responses.
> But can some one give a site that explains the SMART codes .
> What they mean & how to interpret them.
> All I see when I run a diagnostic prog. is a lot of numbers & either FAIL or
> OK
> ..Surly I can tell the state of the drive before some check has reached the
> Fail state ??
Yes and no. Many drives fail without ever registering any kind of SMART
error - around 40%, if I recall the Google survey correctly. Otherwise,
the critical parameters are:
Current Pending Sector (sometimes called "scan errors"?)
Offline Correctable
Reallocated Sectors
If any of these rise above zero, your drive has a problem that's likely
(although far from certain) to get worse. Note that you can sometimes
cause these with one-off power failures.
On Apr 2, 9:00 am, "Trimble" <no-s...@never.spam> wrote:
> I'm the OP ...Thanks for all the responses.
> But can some one give a site that explains the SMART codes .
> What they mean & how to interpret them.
> All I see when I run a diagnostic prog. is a lot of numbers & either FAIL or
> OK
> .Surly I can tell the state of the drive before some check has reached the
> Fail state ??
> (\__/)
> (='.'=)
> (")_(") Mouse
Eyes, ears, and brain is another way to tell if something's going to
fail before it has. Sharp reductions in performace, new noises,
Freezes, and hangs, and crashes, etc. But all of these symptoms have
other causes, too, so it's difficult to prove short of actual
diagnostics.
Don't ignore SMART warnings. It's imperfect, but it's still one of the
best ways to predict a disk failure before it happens.
SMART error ..Must H.Disc be thrown out ? 
Linear Mode
