Go Back   Wireless and Wifi Forums > News > Newsgroups > alt.comp.hardware
Register FAQ Forum Rules Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Advertise Mark Forums Read

 
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 08-11-2006, 08:59 PM
Osiris
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default UltraDMA CRC error rate below ttheshold value in SMART

Hard Disk inspector reports a 40 Gb (Maxtor 6L040J2) the UltraDMS CRC
error rate (index 199) value in the SMART table is well below its
threshold value.
Should I start worrying ?

strange enough, it is the drive that shows a temp of 37 celsius,
whereas the other maxtor shows 18 celsius.... same mounting position,
same air...

Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 08-11-2006, 09:38 PM
Rod Speed
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: UltraDMA CRC error rate below ttheshold value in SMART

Osiris <et57@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Hard Disk inspector reports a 40 Gb (Maxtor 6L040J2) the UltraDMS CRC
> error rate (index 199) value in the SMART table is well below its threshold value.


> Should I start worrying ?


Nope, that is normally a problem with the cable.

The usual causes are a ribbon cable longer than the legal 18", one
of those stupid standard flouting round cables, or just a bad cable.

> strange enough, it is the drive that shows a temp of 37 celsius, whereas
> the other maxtor shows 18 celsius.... same mounting position, same air...


18 sounds impossible, presumably its summer there and
that is below the ambient temp, which flouts basic physics.



Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 08-11-2006, 10:52 PM
kony
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: UltraDMA CRC error rate below ttheshold value in SMART

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 22:59:54 +0200, Osiris
<et57@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Hard Disk inspector reports a 40 Gb (Maxtor 6L040J2) the UltraDMS CRC
>error rate (index 199) value in the SMART table is well below its
>threshold value.
>Should I start worrying ?


Are you sure you know how to use that software?

Usually the issue is when the error rate goes well ABOVE the
threshold value, not well below it.

>
>strange enough, it is the drive that shows a temp of 37 celsius,
>whereas the other maxtor shows 18 celsius.... same mounting position,
>same air...



Get rid of hard disk inspector and do two things.

1) Run the HDD manufacturers' diagnostics.

2) Try filling the drive with data then copy it back
elsewhere and do some CRC checks on it.

The drive manufacturer is the one who knows when a drive has
a problematic state that should trigger a Smart warning and
that is how they set it up. If there were more reliable
early warning signs, they'd simply use them to trigger the
SMART warning earlier. Hard Disk inspector seems to be a
product without a need.

Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 08-11-2006, 11:08 PM
Rod Speed
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: UltraDMA CRC error rate below ttheshold value in SMART

kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
> Osiris <et57@hotmail.com> wrote


>> Hard Disk inspector reports a 40 Gb (Maxtor 6L040J2) the UltraDMS CRC
>> error rate (index 199) value in the SMART table is well below its threshold value.
>> Should I start worrying ?


> Are you sure you know how to use that software?


> Usually the issue is when the error rate goes well
> ABOVE the threshold value, not well below it.


>> strange enough, it is the drive that shows a temp of 37
>> celsius, whereas the other maxtor shows 18 celsius....
>> same mounting position, same air...


> Get rid of hard disk inspector and do two things.


No need, its not a bad way of looking at the SMART data.

> 1) Run the HDD manufacturers' diagnostics.


Wont help with UltraDMA CRC error rate.

> 2) Try filling the drive with data then copy it back
> elsewhere and do some CRC checks on it.


Wont help with UltraDMA CRC errors. They get corrected at
the ATA protocol level, so you wont see CRC errors in the files.

Thats the whole point of the ATA UltraDMA CRC system,
correcting errors in files transferred over the cable.

> The drive manufacturer is the one who knows when a drive
> has a problematic state that should trigger a Smart warning
> and that is how they set it up. If there were more reliable
> early warning signs, they'd simply use them to trigger the
> SMART warning earlier. Hard Disk inspector seems to
> be a product without a need.


It allows the SMART data to be inspected. Thats
a lot better than a mindless SMART pass/fail.



Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 08-12-2006, 12:59 AM
Osiris
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: UltraDMA CRC error rate below ttheshold value in SMART

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 18:52:07 -0400, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 22:59:54 +0200, Osiris
><et57@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Hard Disk inspector reports a 40 Gb (Maxtor 6L040J2) the UltraDMS CRC
>>error rate (index 199) value in the SMART table is well below its
>>threshold value.
>>Should I start worrying ?

>
>Are you sure you know how to use that software?
>


I learned by now, that the SMART software is unequivocal.
Data is now standard most of the time.

>Usually the issue is when the error rate goes well ABOVE the
>threshold value, not well below it.


I read that is is not supposed to be lower...
Some software says its ok, some the opposite...


that's why I check here too.
Ultimately, it is all my own decision/error.

>
>>
>>strange enough, it is the drive that shows a temp of 37 celsius,
>>whereas the other maxtor shows 18 celsius.... same mounting position,
>>same air...

>
>
>Get rid of hard disk inspector and do two things.
>
>1) Run the HDD manufacturers' diagnostics.


Maxtor does not do much in that field.

>
>2) Try filling the drive with data then copy it back
>elsewhere and do some CRC checks on it.
>
>The drive manufacturer is the one who knows when a drive has
>a problematic state that should trigger a Smart warning and
>that is how they set it up. If there were more reliable
>early warning signs,


there may be...
and the drive is some 3+ years old, working long hours/weeks.
Has been running for a year continuously... day/night.
before that normal daily use a few years...
So no tears, if my data stay safe... copied etc.

> they'd simply use them to trigger the
>SMART warning earlier. Hard Disk inspector seems to be a
>product without a need.


Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 08-12-2006, 02:03 AM
kony
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: UltraDMA CRC error rate below ttheshold value in SMART

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 09:08:34 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
>> Osiris <et57@hotmail.com> wrote

>
>>> Hard Disk inspector reports a 40 Gb (Maxtor 6L040J2) the UltraDMS CRC
>>> error rate (index 199) value in the SMART table is well below its threshold value.
>>> Should I start worrying ?

>
>> Are you sure you know how to use that software?

>
>> Usually the issue is when the error rate goes well
>> ABOVE the threshold value, not well below it.

>
>>> strange enough, it is the drive that shows a temp of 37
>>> celsius, whereas the other maxtor shows 18 celsius....
>>> same mounting position, same air...

>
>> Get rid of hard disk inspector and do two things.

>
>No need, its not a bad way of looking at the SMART data.


You imply a need to look at it.

>
>> 1) Run the HDD manufacturers' diagnostics.

>
>Wont help with UltraDMA CRC error rate.
>
>> 2) Try filling the drive with data then copy it back
>> elsewhere and do some CRC checks on it.

>
>Wont help with UltraDMA CRC errors. They get corrected at
>the ATA protocol level, so you wont see CRC errors in the files.


While that is true, what are you concluding to need help?

You do realize that a perfectly working disk subsystem has 0
CRC errors, zero also being "well below it's threshold
value". Based on the info provided, we not only have no
reason to suspect a problem, but the beginnings of evidence
that there isn't one.

>
>Thats the whole point of the ATA UltraDMA CRC system,
>correcting errors in files transferred over the cable.


.... and the point of a tire inner tube might be to repair a
tire but you'll have to find a tire that needs one.


>> The drive manufacturer is the one who knows when a drive
>> has a problematic state that should trigger a Smart warning
>> and that is how they set it up. If there were more reliable
>> early warning signs, they'd simply use them to trigger the
>> SMART warning earlier. Hard Disk inspector seems to
>> be a product without a need.

>
>It allows the SMART data to be inspected. Thats
>a lot better than a mindless SMART pass/fail.


.... only if you think you know more about that particular
drive than the manufacturer who set the SMART thresholds for
pass/fail in the first place.

Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 08-12-2006, 03:59 AM
Rod Speed
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: UltraDMA CRC error rate below ttheshold value in SMART

kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
>>> Osiris <et57@hotmail.com> wrote


>>>> Hard Disk inspector reports a 40 Gb (Maxtor 6L040J2) the UltraDMS CRC
>>>> error rate (index 199) value in the SMART table is well below its
>>>> threshold value. Should I start worrying ?


>>> Are you sure you know how to use that software?


>>> Usually the issue is when the error rate goes well
>>> ABOVE the threshold value, not well below it.


>>>> strange enough, it is the drive that shows a temp of 37
>>>> celsius, whereas the other maxtor shows 18 celsius....
>>>> same mounting position, same air...


>>> Get rid of hard disk inspector and do two things.


>> No need, its not a bad way of looking at the SMART data.


> You imply a need to look at it.


I'm happy to state that explicitly. Plenty of drives are too conservative
on the SMART pass/fail and you can get useful information from the
actual data, most obviously with this data and the temperature too.

>>> 1) Run the HDD manufacturers' diagnostics.


>> Wont help with UltraDMA CRC error rate.


>>> 2) Try filling the drive with data then copy it back
>>> elsewhere and do some CRC checks on it.


>> Wont help with UltraDMA CRC errors. They get corrected at
>> the ATA protocol level, so you wont see CRC errors in the files.


> While that is true, what are you concluding to need help?


God knows what you 'think' that pathetic excuse for a sentance
is about. Your 'suggestion' to check the CRC of files is completely
useless when the whole point of the ATA UltraDMA CRC system
is to resend the data when an UltraDMA CRC error shows up.

> You do realize that a perfectly working disk subsystem has 0
> CRC errors, zero also being "well below it's threshold value".


Irrelevant to your 'suggestion' to check the CRC of files when
the whole point of the ATA UltraDMA CRC system is to resend
the data when an UltraDMA CRC error shows up.

> Based on the info provided, we not only
> have no reason to suspect a problem, but
> the beginnings of evidence that there isn't one.


Irrelevant to your 'suggestion' to check the CRC of files when
the whole point of the ATA UltraDMA CRC system is to resend
the data when an UltraDMA CRC error shows up.

>> Thats the whole point of the ATA UltraDMA CRC system,
>> correcting errors in files transferred over the cable.


> ... and the point of a tire inner tube might be to repair
> a tire but you'll have to find a tire that needs one.


Never ever could ******** its way out of a wet paper bag.

>>> The drive manufacturer is the one who knows when a drive
>>> has a problematic state that should trigger a Smart warning
>>> and that is how they set it up. If there were more reliable
>>> early warning signs, they'd simply use them to trigger the
>>> SMART warning earlier. Hard Disk inspector seems to
>>> be a product without a need.


>> It allows the SMART data to be inspected. Thats
>> a lot better than a mindless SMART pass/fail.


> ... only if you think you know more about that particular drive than the
> manufacturer who set the SMART thresholds for pass/fail in the first place.


Wrong again. You can choose to be conservative when you see a
substantial number of reallocated sectors, and decide that that is
usually evidence of a drive that is either dying or which isnt being
cooled adequately or which isnt getting a decent power supply etc.

And can see from the SMART temp that the
drive needs better cooling, etc etc etc.

In the particular situation being discussed, you can check whether a standard
flouting cable is being used, and try different cable if its within specs etc.



Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 08-12-2006, 07:15 AM
Osiris
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: UltraDMA CRC error rate below ttheshold value in SMART


>
>I learned by now, that the SMART software is unequivocal.
>Data is now standard most of the time.
>


typo: now=not

Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 08-12-2006, 07:33 PM
Frank Booth Snr
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: UltraDMA CRC error rate below ttheshold value in SMART

Osiris wrote:
> Hard Disk inspector reports a 40 Gb (Maxtor 6L040J2) the UltraDMS CRC
> error rate (index 199) value in the SMART table is well below its
> threshold value.
> Should I start worrying ?
>
> strange enough, it is the drive that shows a temp of 37 celsius,
> whereas the other maxtor shows 18 celsius.... same mounting position,
> same air...

To be frank, Maxtor are not a very reliable make of drive. Many
including myself have had problems at one time or another. Currently my
Dell is consistently giving my Maxtor (40GB) a SMART error on booting
up, whereas Maxtor's own drive test shows a 'pass'. This has been going
on for months now, but no HDD failure as yet. The concensus of opinion
on Dell forums, where Maxtor is the make of drive usually supplied with
the PC, is don't replace it with another Maxtor.

Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 08-12-2006, 07:52 PM
Rod Speed
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: UltraDMA CRC error rate below ttheshold value in SMART

Osiris <et57@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I learned by now, that the SMART software is unequivocal.
>> Data is now standard most of the time.
>>

>
> typo: now=not


That is just plain wrong, most of the data is standard.



Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 08-12-2006, 08:13 PM
Osiris
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: UltraDMA CRC error rate below ttheshold value in SMART

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 05:52:34 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>Osiris <et57@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> I learned by now, that the SMART software is unequivocal.
>>> Data is now standard most of the time.
>>>

>>
>> typo: now=not

>
>That is just plain wrong, most of the data is standard.
>


I read this:
http://www.altrixsoft.com/en/support...attributes.php
and from this:
http://www.almico.com/sfarticle.php?id=2
I cite:

"It should be noted that a lot of things in S.M.A.R.T. specifications
are left up to the device manufacturer. At the lowest level, we might
even know nothing about any attribute as long as values and thresholds
are not exceeded."

and:

"When an attribute value is the same as or lower than its threshold,
the drive is considered to be failing S.M.A.R.T. status."

And I see:
One of my drives gives me twice as many parameters than the other,


Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 08-12-2006, 09:03 PM
kony
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: UltraDMA CRC error rate below ttheshold value in SMART

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 20:33:55 +0100, Frank Booth Snr
<fbsnr@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>Osiris wrote:
>> Hard Disk inspector reports a 40 Gb (Maxtor 6L040J2) the UltraDMS CRC
>> error rate (index 199) value in the SMART table is well below its
>> threshold value.
>> Should I start worrying ?
>>
>> strange enough, it is the drive that shows a temp of 37 celsius,
>> whereas the other maxtor shows 18 celsius.... same mounting position,
>> same air...

>To be frank, Maxtor are not a very reliable make of drive. Many
>including myself have had problems at one time or another. Currently my
>Dell is consistently giving my Maxtor (40GB) a SMART error on booting
>up, whereas Maxtor's own drive test shows a 'pass'. This has been going
>on for months now, but no HDD failure as yet. The concensus of opinion
>on Dell forums, where Maxtor is the make of drive usually supplied with
>the PC, is don't replace it with another Maxtor.



If a large % of Dell users are having this problem it tends
to suggest the system itself. IF Maxtors were dropping like
flies we would see a recall.

Then again, how old is that 40GB drive at this point? No
drive lasts forever, Dell systems tend to have only mediocre
cooling in the first place so if the drive is now ~4+ years
old you may have gotten a fair value out of it.

There was one model of 40GB in particular that was more
problematic than those that came before or after, was one of
(if not the first) generation with 7200 RPM, a Diamondmax
Plus 60.

Which is yours? IIRC these are in order from oldest to
newest, came in 40GB regardless of the capacity of the
specimen pictured.

Plus 60
http://69.36.189.159/usr_1034/maxtor_plus60.jpg

D740X
http://69.36.189.159/usr_1034/maxtor_d740x.jpg

Plus 8
http://69.36.189.159/usr_1034/maxtor_plus8.jpg

These are three distinctly different drives, having one fail
is no indication of the reliability of either of the other
two, nor of any modern Maxtor, nor of any other brand. A
specific problem with a specific model is only indicative of
that model. Thus the importance in clarifying which model
is problematic... because it isn't 40GB Maxtors in general,
I've had over a dozen total of the above 3 models in 40GB
capacity and only saw the Plus60 fail prematurely. I think
systems I've sold still have at least a dozen of them as
primary drives regularly used today.

While my small sample size isn't enough to get an average
failure rate, it does indicate that they're not all prone to
be problematic.

Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 08-12-2006, 09:16 PM
Rod Speed
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: UltraDMA CRC error rate below ttheshold value in SMART

Osiris <et57@hotmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Osiris <et57@hotmail.com> wrote


>>>> I learned by now, that the SMART software is unequivocal.
>>>> Data is now standard most of the time.


>>> typo: now=not


>> That is just plain wrong, most of the data is standard.


> I read this:
> http://www.altrixsoft.com/en/support...attributes.php


That one shows that most of the fields are standard.

> and from this:
> http://www.almico.com/sfarticle.php?id=2
> I cite:


> "It should be noted that a lot of things in S.M.A.R.T.
> specifications are left up to the device manufacturer.


Yes, but in practice most of the SMART fields
that most drives present are pretty universal.

> At the lowest level, we might even know nothing about any
> attribute as long as values and thresholds are not exceeded."


And that is in fact not that common. Yes there are vendor specific
fields, but they arent generally all that commonly used for the most
important data, essentially because the most important data is pretty
adequately covered by the fields you see on most SMART reports.

> and:


> "When an attribute value is the same as or lower than its threshold,
> the drive is considered to be failing S.M.A.R.T. status."


> And I see:
> One of my drives gives me twice as many parameters than the other,


Yes, but the most imporant parameters are there for both drives.



Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 08-12-2006, 09:27 PM
Rod Speed
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: UltraDMA CRC error rate below ttheshold value in SMART

kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
> Frank Booth Snr <fbsnr@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>> Osiris wrote


>>> Hard Disk inspector reports a 40 Gb (Maxtor 6L040J2) the UltraDMS
>>> CRC error rate (index 199) value in the SMART table is well below
>>> its threshold value.
>>> Should I start worrying ?


>>> strange enough, it is the drive that shows a temp of 37 celsius,
>>> whereas the other maxtor shows 18 celsius.... same mounting
>>> position, same air...


>> To be frank, Maxtor are not a very reliable make of drive. Many
>> including myself have had problems at one time or another. Currently
>> my Dell is consistently giving my Maxtor (40GB) a SMART error on
>> booting up, whereas Maxtor's own drive test shows a 'pass'. This has
>> been going on for months now, but no HDD failure as yet. The
>> concensus of opinion on Dell forums, where Maxtor is the make of
>> drive usually supplied with the PC, is don't replace it with another Maxtor.


> If a large % of Dell users are having this
> problem it tends to suggest the system itself.


Or that the Maxtors dont like that environment.

> IF Maxtors were dropping like flies we would see a recall.


Didnt happen with the infamous DeathStars or the Fujitsu MPGs.

Or the Dell laptops which ran the drive right at the limit of what the
hard drive manufacturer allows hard drive temp wise and which got
a hard drive failure rate that showed the problem with that approach.

> Then again, how old is that 40GB drive at this point?
> No drive lasts forever, Dell systems tend to have only
> mediocre cooling in the first place so if the drive is now
> ~4+ years old you may have gotten a fair value out of it.


Nope. Any decently designed drive can do better than that.

> There was one model of 40GB in particular that was more
> problematic than those that came before or after, was one of
> (if not the first) generation with 7200 RPM, a Diamondmax Plus 60.


> Which is yours? IIRC these are in order from oldest to newest,
> came in 40GB regardless of the capacity of the specimen pictured.


> Plus 60
> http://69.36.189.159/usr_1034/maxtor_plus60.jpg


> D740X
> http://69.36.189.159/usr_1034/maxtor_d740x.jpg


> Plus 8
> http://69.36.189.159/usr_1034/maxtor_plus8.jpg


> These are three distinctly different drives, having one
> fail is no indication of the reliability of either of the other
> two, nor of any modern Maxtor, nor of any other brand. A
> specific problem with a specific model is only indicative of
> that model. Thus the importance in clarifying which model
> is problematic... because it isn't 40GB Maxtors in general,
> I've had over a dozen total of the above 3 models in 40GB
> capacity and only saw the Plus60 fail prematurely. I think
> systems I've sold still have at least a dozen of them as
> primary drives regularly used today.


> While my small sample size isn't enough to get an average
> failure rate, it does indicate that they're not all prone to
> be problematic.


He didnt say they were. He JUST said that IF
it fails, dont replace with with another Maxtor.



Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 08-13-2006, 03:59 AM
paulmd@efn.org
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: UltraDMA CRC error rate below ttheshold value in SMART


Frank Booth Snr wrote:
> Osiris wrote:
> > Hard Disk inspector reports a 40 Gb (Maxtor 6L040J2) the UltraDMS CRC
> > error rate (index 199) value in the SMART table is well below its
> > threshold value.
> > Should I start worrying ?
> >
> > strange enough, it is the drive that shows a temp of 37 celsius,
> > whereas the other maxtor shows 18 celsius.... same mounting position,
> > same air...

> To be frank, Maxtor are not a very reliable make of drive. Many
> including myself have had problems at one time or another. Currently my
> Dell is consistently giving my Maxtor (40GB) a SMART error on booting
> up, whereas Maxtor's own drive test shows a 'pass'. This has been going
> on for months now, but no HDD failure as yet. The concensus of opinion
> on Dell forums, where Maxtor is the make of drive usually supplied with
> the PC, is don't replace it with another Maxtor.


You DO have a backup, for WHEN that drive fails, don't you?


Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 08-13-2006, 04:27 AM
kony
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: UltraDMA CRC error rate below ttheshold value in SMART

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 07:27:03 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
>> Frank Booth Snr <fbsnr@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>>> Osiris wrote

>
>>>> Hard Disk inspector reports a 40 Gb (Maxtor 6L040J2) the UltraDMS
>>>> CRC error rate (index 199) value in the SMART table is well below
>>>> its threshold value.
>>>> Should I start worrying ?

>
>>>> strange enough, it is the drive that shows a temp of 37 celsius,
>>>> whereas the other maxtor shows 18 celsius.... same mounting
>>>> position, same air...

>
>>> To be frank, Maxtor are not a very reliable make of drive. Many
>>> including myself have had problems at one time or another. Currently
>>> my Dell is consistently giving my Maxtor (40GB) a SMART error on
>>> booting up, whereas Maxtor's own drive test shows a 'pass'. This has
>>> been going on for months now, but no HDD failure as yet. The
>>> concensus of opinion on Dell forums, where Maxtor is the make of
>>> drive usually supplied with the PC, is don't replace it with another Maxtor.

>
>> If a large % of Dell users are having this
>> problem it tends to suggest the system itself.

>
>Or that the Maxtors dont like that environment.


Which again, suggests it's the system, not the drive.



>
>> IF Maxtors were dropping like flies we would see a recall.

>
>Didnt happen with the infamous DeathStars or the Fujitsu MPGs.


.... yet they WERE infamous. So "maybe" not a recall, just a
black flag across the entire industry.... which hasn't
happened.

>
>Or the Dell laptops which ran the drive right at the limit of what the
>hard drive manufacturer allows hard drive temp wise and which got
>a hard drive failure rate that showed the problem with that approach.


Which is again a system problem, not a drive problem per
se... the drive problem was only consequential.



>
>> Then again, how old is that 40GB drive at this point?
>> No drive lasts forever, Dell systems tend to have only
>> mediocre cooling in the first place so if the drive is now
>> ~4+ years old you may have gotten a fair value out of it.

>
>Nope. Any decently designed drive can do better than that.


"Can", yes. You'd be foolish to rely on one though. Fact
is, your "nope" is completely wrong. At the 4 year mark he
has indeed gotten a fair value out of it. At that point
even if it does still work, it is relatively slow, and the
liability of continuing to use it exceeds it's value.



>
>> There was one model of 40GB in particular that was more
>> problematic than those that came before or after, was one of
>> (if not the first) generation with 7200 RPM, a Diamondmax Plus 60.

>
>> Which is yours? IIRC these are in order from oldest to newest,
>> came in 40GB regardless of the capacity of the specimen pictured.

>
>> Plus 60
>> http://69.36.189.159/usr_1034/maxtor_plus60.jpg

>
>> D740X
>> http://69.36.189.159/usr_1034/maxtor_d740x.jpg

>
>> Plus 8
>> http://69.36.189.159/usr_1034/maxtor_plus8.jpg

>
>> These are three distinctly different drives, having one
>> fail is no indication of the reliability of either of the other
>> two, nor of any modern Maxtor, nor of any other brand. A
>> specific problem with a specific model is only indicative of
>> that model. Thus the importance in clarifying which model
>> is problematic... because it isn't 40GB Maxtors in general,
>> I've had over a dozen total of the above 3 models in 40GB
>> capacity and only saw the Plus60 fail prematurely. I think
>> systems I've sold still have at least a dozen of them as
>> primary drives regularly used today.

>
>> While my small sample size isn't enough to get an average
>> failure rate, it does indicate that they're not all prone to
>> be problematic.

>
>He didnt say they were. He JUST said that IF
>it fails, dont replace with with another Maxtor.


Yes, and as pointed out above, that isn't entirely
reasonable. Maxtor isn't selling the same drive he had
fail, today's maxtor models are as different from his
several year old 40GB drive as any other brand is. If
anything, it's a sign he should avoid Dell, since when all
is said and done, Dell as the integrator has to pick ALL
parts in combinations that work together.


Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 08-13-2006, 04:43 AM
Rod Speed
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: UltraDMA CRC error rate below ttheshold value in SMART

kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
>>> Frank Booth Snr <fbsnr@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>>>> Osiris wrote


>>>>> Hard Disk inspector reports a 40 Gb (Maxtor 6L040J2) the UltraDMS
>>>>> CRC error rate (index 199) value in the SMART table is well below
>>>>> its threshold value.
>>>>> Should I start worrying ?


>>>>> strange enough, it is the drive that shows a temp of 37 celsius,
>>>>> whereas the other maxtor shows 18 celsius.... same mounting
>>>>> position, same air...


>>>> To be frank, Maxtor are not a very reliable make of drive. Many
>>>> including myself have had problems at one time or another. Currently
>>>> my Dell is consistently giving my Maxtor (40GB) a SMART error on
>>>> booting up, whereas Maxtor's own drive test shows a 'pass'. This
>>>> has been going on for months now, but no HDD failure as yet. The
>>>> concensus of opinion on Dell forums, where Maxtor is the make of
>>>> drive usually supplied with the PC, is don't replace it with another Maxtor.


>>> If a large % of Dell users are having this
>>> problem it tends to suggest the system itself.


>> Or that the Maxtors dont like that environment.


> Which again, suggests it's the system, not the drive.


Wrong when Maxtors dont like perfectly
viable cases that other drives are fine in.

>>> IF Maxtors were dropping like flies we would see a recall.


>> Didnt happen with the infamous DeathStars or the Fujitsu MPGs.


> ... yet they WERE infamous. So "maybe" not a recall, just a
> black flag across the entire industry.... which hasn't happened.


Yes it has. Tho not as dramatically as with those.

In fact recalls are quite uncommon in this industry.

>> Or the Dell laptops which ran the drive right at the limit of what the
>> hard drive manufacturer allows hard drive temp wise and which got
>> a hard drive failure rate that showed the problem with that approach.


> Which is again a system problem, not a drive problem
> per se... the drive problem was only consequential.


That was a comment on your recall stupidity. Didnt happen with those.

>>> Then again, how old is that 40GB drive at this point?
>>> No drive lasts forever, Dell systems tend to have only
>>> mediocre cooling in the first place so if the drive is now
>>> ~4+ years old you may have gotten a fair value out of it.


>> Nope. Any decently designed drive can do better than that.


> "Can", yes.


Does too.

> You'd be foolish to rely on one though.


Irrelevant to whether it make any sense to
replace a dying Maxtor with another Maxtor.

> Fact is, your "nope" is completely wrong.


Nope.

> At the 4 year mark he has indeed gotten a fair value out of it.


Nope, lousy value compared with a
drive from someone else that didnt die.

Death of a hard drive even when fully backed up is a pain in the arse.

> At that point even if it does still work, it is relatively slow,
> and the liability of continuing to use it exceeds it's value.


You dont know that either. Depends entirely on how its used.

>>> There was one model of 40GB in particular that was more
>>> problematic than those that came before or after, was one of
>>> (if not the first) generation with 7200 RPM, a Diamondmax Plus 60.


>>> Which is yours? IIRC these are in order from oldest to newest,
>>> came in 40GB regardless of the capacity of the specimen pictured.


>>> Plus 60
>>> http://69.36.189.159/usr_1034/maxtor_plus60.jpg


>>> D740X
>>> http://69.36.189.159/usr_1034/maxtor_d740x.jpg


>>> Plus 8
>>> http://69.36.189.159/usr_1034/maxtor_plus8.jpg


>>> These are three distinctly different drives, having one
>>> fail is no indication of the reliability of either of the other
>>> two, nor of any modern Maxtor, nor of any other brand. A
>>> specific problem with a specific model is only indicative of
>>> that model. Thus the importance in clarifying which model
>>> is problematic... because it isn't 40GB Maxtors in general,
>>> I've had over a dozen total of the above 3 models in 40GB
>>> capacity and only saw the Plus60 fail prematurely. I think
>>> systems I've sold still have at least a dozen of them as
>>> primary drives regularly used today.


>>> While my small sample size isn't enough to get an average failure
>>> rate, it does indicate that they're not all prone to be problematic.


>> He didnt say they were. He JUST said that IF
>> it fails, dont replace with with another Maxtor.


> Yes, and as pointed out above, that isn't entirely reasonable.


Wrong, as always. Even if the case doesnt have good
enough drive cooling for Maxtors, it STILL makes no
sense to replace the dead Maxtor with another Maxtor.

> Maxtor isn't selling the same drive he had fail,
> today's maxtor models are as different from his
> several year old 40GB drive as any other brand is.


Wrong again on needing good cooling for a long life.

> If anything, it's a sign he should avoid Dell, since when
> all is said and done, Dell as the integrator has to pick
> ALL parts in combinations that work together.


Irrelevant to whether it makes sense to use other
than a Maxtor if a Maxtor has died in that system.



Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 08-13-2006, 02:02 PM
kony
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: UltraDMA CRC error rate below ttheshold value in SMART

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 14:43:08 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:


>> Which again, suggests it's the system, not the drive.

>
>Wrong when Maxtors dont like perfectly
>viable cases that other drives are fine in.


Nonsense.
They use no particular parts more subject to overheating or
intolerant of elevated temps than anybody else, "in
general". Every now and then the various brands will use
something they later change, as does Maxtor. There is no
constant "maxtor is this or that" because as you cluelessly
keep ignoring, their drives change from generation to
generation just like the others.


>
>>>> IF Maxtors were dropping like flies we would see a recall.

>
>>> Didnt happen with the infamous DeathStars or the Fujitsu MPGs.

>
>> ... yet they WERE infamous. So "maybe" not a recall, just a
>> black flag across the entire industry.... which hasn't happened.

>
>Yes it has. Tho not as dramatically as with those.


Nope, only people like yourself that ignore reality and
blame the part instead of the builder. There is one thing
that leads to a false impression of Maxtor though, about
1-2 years ago they had the most aggressive discounts and
rebates such that all the lowest-end system builders would
tend to seek them. As always cost-cutting entails tradeoffs
from a chassis, cooling and power perspective and/or
builders that don't even have the experience to recognize
these tradeoffs nor the basic needs of any and all modern
drives.



>>>> Then again, how old is that 40GB drive at this point?
>>>> No drive lasts forever, Dell systems tend to have only
>>>> mediocre cooling in the first place so if the drive is now
>>>> ~4+ years old you may have gotten a fair value out of it.

>
>>> Nope. Any decently designed drive can do better than that.

>
>> "Can", yes.

>
>Does too.


See next line I wrote below, if you have a statistically
significant sample of drives that old being _regularly_
_used_ , you'd know they do fail more regularly at the 4+
year mark. Does it mean all die on day 1 of year 4? Of
course not, but it remains that the value of the drive has
been appreciated, or rather, at that point depreciated until
it's best to replace it.


>
>> You'd be foolish to rely on one though.

>
>Irrelevant to whether it make any sense to
>replace a dying Maxtor with another Maxtor.


Plenty of people use them fine. Maybe you should focus more
on what you are or aren't doing, wrongly, causing the
problems. This is a pretty basic troubleshooting process,
when there is more than one variable and the drive is not
seen to exhibit problems, the focus then turns to the other
variables.

Or, we have an entirely different situation as original
stated about the Dells with Maxtors in them. Dell sells,
suppose 20,000 systems with Maxtors and then a percentage
fail. That percentage need not be statistically high rather
than normal compared to any other brand, all that is
necessary to paint a misleading picture is to have a forum
where a larger % of participants had the drive so they're
contrasting a larger sample size and total # of failures,
not percent failure compared to any other make/model in same
environment over same time period.




Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 08-13-2006, 07:15 PM
Rod Speed
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: UltraDMA CRC error rate below ttheshold value in SMART

kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
>>>>> Frank Booth Snr <fbsnr@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>>>>>> Osiris wrote


>>>>>> To be frank, Maxtor are not a very reliable make of drive. Many
>>>>>> including myself have had problems at one time or another. Currently
>>>>>> my Dell is consistently giving my Maxtor (40GB) a SMART error on
>>>>>> booting up, whereas Maxtor's own drive test shows a 'pass'. This
>>>>>> has been going on for months now, but no HDD failure as yet. The
>>>>>> concensus of opinion on Dell forums, where Maxtor is the make of
>>>>>> drive usually supplied with the PC, is don't replace it with another Maxtor.


>>>>> If a large % of Dell users are having this
>>>>> problem it tends to suggest the system itself.


>>>> Or that the Maxtors dont like that environment.


>>> Which again, suggests it's the system, not the drive.


>> Wrong when Maxtors dont like perfectly
>> viable cases that other drives are fine in.


> Nonsense.


We'll see...

> They use no particular parts more subject to overheating or
> intolerant of elevated temps than anybody else, "in general".


Measure the ic surface temps in a situation where
there isnt a lot of airflow over the drives some time
to prove that that claim is just plain wrong.

> Every now and then the various brands will use
> something they later change, as does Maxtor.
> There is no constant "maxtor is this or that"


Corse there is with their own ics.

> because as you cluelessly keep ignoring, their drives
> change from generation to generation just like the others.


And some things stay from generation to generation too,
most obviously with the idle current and ic temp detail.

>>>>> IF Maxtors were dropping like flies we would see a recall.


>>>> Didnt happen with the infamous DeathStars or the Fujitsu MPGs.


>>> ... yet they WERE infamous. So "maybe" not a recall, just a
>>> black flag across the entire industry.... which hasn't happened.


>> Yes it has. Tho not as dramatically as with those.


> Nope,


Yep.

> only people like yourself that ignore reality
> and blame the part instead of the builder.


Pity about the external Maxtors where Maxtor
is both the builder and the part manufacturer.

> There is one thing that leads to a false impression of
> Maxtor though, about 1-2 years ago they had the most
> aggressive discounts and rebates such that all the
> lowest-end system builders would tend to seek them.
> As always cost-cutting entails tradeoffs from a chassis,
> cooling and power perspective and/or builders that don't
> even have the experience to recognize these tradeoffs
> nor the basic needs of any and all modern drives.


Have fun explaining how come other drives survive in those cases fine.

>>>>> Then again, how old is that 40GB drive at this point?
>>>>> No drive lasts forever, Dell systems tend to have only
>>>>> mediocre cooling in the first place so if the drive is now
>>>>> ~4+ years old you may have gotten a fair value out of it.


>>>> Nope. Any decently designed drive can do better than that.


>>> "Can", yes.


>> Does too.


> See next line I wrote below, if you have a
> statistically significant sample of drives that
> old being _regularly_ _used_ , you'd know
> they do fail more regularly at the 4+ year mark.


Mindless pig ignorant silly stuff. Most dont have the drives
fail at any age, they get discarded for other reasons.

> Does it mean all die on day 1 of year 4? Of course not,
> but it remains that the value of the drive has been appreciated,
> or rather, at that point depreciated until it's best to replace it.


Doesnt happen with the personal desktop systems being discussed.

>>> You'd be foolish to rely on one though.


>> Irrelevant to whether it make any sense to
>> replace a dying Maxtor with another Maxtor.


> Plenty of people use them fine. Maybe you should focus more
> on what you are or aren't doing, wrongly, causing the problems.


Or notice that other drives handle that situation fine.

> This is a pretty basic troubleshooting process, when there
> is more than one variable and the drive is not seen to exhibit
> problems, the focus then turns to the other variables.


Even easier to notice that other drives handle that fine.

> Or, we have an entirely different situation as original
> stated about the Dells with Maxtors in them. Dell sells,
> suppose 20,000 systems with Maxtors and then a percentage
> fail. That percentage need not be statistically high rather
> than normal compared to any other brand, all that is
> necessary to paint a misleading picture is to have a forum
> where a larger % of participants had the drive so they're
> contrasting a larger sample size and total # of failures,
> not percent failure compared to any other make/model
> in same environment over same time period.


Waffle all you like, child, you're just plain wrong, as always.



Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 08-13-2006, 09:37 PM
Osiris
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: UltraDMA CRC error rate below ttheshold value in SMART

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 18:52:07 -0400, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 22:59:54 +0200, Osiris
><et57@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Hard Disk inspector reports a 40 Gb (Maxtor 6L040J2) the UltraDMS CRC
>>error rate (index 199) value in the SMART table is well below its
>>threshold value.
>>Should I start worrying ?

>
>Are you sure you know how to use that software?
>
>Usually the issue is when the error rate goes well ABOVE the
>threshold value, not well below it.
>
>>


I don't think so: when values go BELOW threshold, a problem may occur.
As long as they stay above, problems are unlikelier.
they seem to count DOWN...
http://www.almico.com/sfarticle.php?id=2

But maybe you mean to say the same thing...

I hope you do not need to re-interpret your own readings now...

Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 08-13-2006, 09:50 PM
Osiris
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: UltraDMA CRC error rate below ttheshold value in SMART

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 17:03:45 -0400, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 20:33:55 +0100, Frank Booth Snr
><fbsnr@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Osiris wrote:
>>> Hard Disk inspector reports a 40 Gb (Maxtor 6L040J2) the UltraDMS CRC
>>> error rate (index 199) value in the SMART table is well below its
>>> threshold value.
>>> Should I start worrying ?
>>>
>>> strange enough, it is the drive that shows a temp of 37 celsius,
>>> whereas the other maxtor shows 18 celsius.... same mounting position,
>>> same air...

>>To be frank, Maxtor are not a very reliable make of drive. Many
>>including myself have had problems at one time or another. Currently my
>>Dell is consistently giving my Maxtor (40GB) a SMART error on booting
>>up, whereas Maxtor's own drive test shows a 'pass'. This has been going
>>on for months now, but no HDD failure as yet. The concensus of opinion
>>on Dell forums, where Maxtor is the make of drive usually supplied with
>>the PC, is don't replace it with another Maxtor.

>
>
>If a large % of Dell users are having this problem it tends
>to suggest the system itself. IF Maxtors were dropping like
>flies we would see a recall.
>


Any idea what that would cost ? and how it would relate to the profit
made on a drive ?
My guess is, it would then be cheaper to go bankrupt.
As the market is developing now (or should I say HAS developed
already) there will be only 2 or three drive makers in a few
years.(and they will reside in China. grin)
Goes for any component: MOBO, CD-R/RW/DVD, mem...
The market is consolidating at high speed.
profits are nickle-and-dime....
If that is all good... remains to be seen. consumers thrive on
competition.
Is competition in this market coming to an end ?
In the Netherlands, consumers are already getting notably more
conservative in buying "the newest / coolest" than many other
countries.
Common sense taking over again ?

Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 08-13-2006, 10:21 PM
Rod Speed
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: UltraDMA CRC error rate below ttheshold value in SMART

Osiris <et57@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 17:03:45 -0400, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 20:33:55 +0100, Frank Booth Snr
>> <fbsnr@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Osiris wrote:
>>>> Hard Disk inspector reports a 40 Gb (Maxtor 6L040J2) the UltraDMS
>>>> CRC error rate (index 199) value in the SMART table is well below
>>>> its threshold value.
>>>> Should I start worrying ?
>>>>
>>>> strange enough, it is the drive that shows a temp of 37 celsius,
>>>> whereas the other maxtor shows 18 celsius.... same mounting
>>>> position, same air...
>>> To be frank, Maxtor are not a very reliable make of drive. Many
>>> including myself have had problems at one time or another.
>>> Currently my Dell is consistently giving my Maxtor (40GB) a SMART
>>> error on booting up, whereas Maxtor's own drive test shows a
>>> 'pass'. This has been going on for months now, but no HDD failure
>>> as yet. The concensus of opinion on Dell forums, where Maxtor is
>>> the make of drive usually supplied with the PC, is don't replace it
>>> with another Maxtor.

>>
>>
>> If a large % of Dell users are having this problem it tends
>> to suggest the system itself. IF Maxtors were dropping like
>> flies we would see a recall.
>>

>
> Any idea what that would cost ? and how it would relate to the profit
> made on a drive ?
> My guess is, it would then be cheaper to go bankrupt.
> As the market is developing now (or should I say HAS developed
> already) there will be only 2 or three drive makers in a few
> years.(and they will reside in China. grin)


I doubt it, there is only one manufacturer that manufactures
in china, and they dont do the design work in china.

> Goes for any component: MOBO, CD-R/RW/DVD, mem...


Nope, hard drives have always been done differently and
there is no evidence that that is about to change any time soon.

> The market is consolidating at high speed.
> profits are nickle-and-dime....
> If that is all good... remains to be seen. consumers thrive on
> competition.
> Is competition in this market coming to an end ?


Nope.

> In the Netherlands, consumers are already getting notably more
> conservative in buying "the newest / coolest" than many other countries.


Dont believe it.

> Common sense taking over again ?


Nope, its happening world wide.

And the reverse keeps happening too, most
obviously with ipods and mp3 players too.



Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 08-13-2006, 11:17 PM
Osiris
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: UltraDMA CRC error rate below ttheshold value in SMART


>Dont believe it.


I KNOW it

>
>> Common sense taking over again ?


>
>And the reverse keeps happening too, most
>obviously with ipods and mp3 players too.
>


obvious short-lived hype.
x Gb Ipods ? who is actually USING xGB music ?
Tastes change too quickly to be able to hear xGb if music ;-).
Complete Mozart is how many Mb ?
Nobody really WANTS those things: people want to HEAR music. Not HAVE
it...

Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 08-13-2006, 11:32 PM
Rod Speed
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: UltraDMA CRC error rate below ttheshold value in SMART

Osiris <et57@hotmail.com> wrote

>>> In the Netherlands, consumers are already getting notably more
>>> conservative in buying "the newest / coolest" than many other countries.


>> Dont believe it.


> I KNOW it


No you dont. You have no way of knowing
what happens in 'many other countrys'

>>> Common sense taking over again ?


>> Nope, its happening world wide.


>> And the reverse keeps happening too, most
>> obviously with ipods and mp3 players too.


> obvious short-lived hype.


Nope, it will turn out to be just the same as
cellphones, they'll be with us forever now.

> x Gb Ipods ? who is actually USING xGB music ?


Its handy to have everything you have music wise in the
system so you can play anything you want any time you want.

> Tastes change too quickly to be able to hear xGb if music ;-).


Wrong, as always.

> Complete Mozart is how many Mb ?


Depends on the quality you want.

> Nobody really WANTS those things:
> people want to HEAR music. Not HAVE it...


Have fun explaining most people's CD collection.

Its just a better and more effective way of doing the same thing.



Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 08-14-2006, 07:55 AM
Osiris
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: UltraDMA CRC error rate below ttheshold value in SMART


>
>> Nobody really WANTS those things:
>> people want to HEAR music. Not HAVE it...

>
>Have fun explaining most people's CD collection.
>


Exactly my point:
People HAVE CD collections. They not necessarily PLAY them.
The mechanism is this, I think:
I hear music , I like it and want to hear it at my own time, not being
dependent on some plugging CD jockey.
For that I have to HAVE a music carrier and a player. In principle it
is totally irrelevant, what kind of machine/carrier.
The CD is means to an end.
CD sales are plumetting. Because of the MP3 phenomenon. Another sign,
that ppl do not really WANT CD's.
Pll only BUY CD's nowadays for the booklet, it seems. Otherwise they
just steal an MP3.
This would suggest there is even a resistance to HAVE CD's, because
ppl seem to be prepared to put aside the moral implications of
stealing.

People are comfortable with the volatility/flexibility of the carrier
medium (magnetic, chip). Because it is in line with the
volatility/flexibility of their taste.
When the HD crashes, only a small percentage of the MP3 collection
will be restored/downloaded again.
(MP3 CD dumps: same as any other CD)

Of course some ppl collect CD's. But some, only SOME, ppl collect
bottle caps and matchboxes...
No real argument to generalize the connection between HAVING and
NEEDING/WANTING.

Concluding:
To be able to hear music at will, you only need access to the sound at
will. And that is enough.
Imagine a flat little panel on the wall at home, through which (eg.
via the telephone line or cable or wireless) you could get at a really
hughe database of music. A screen with text about the music, picture
of the artist. Price: 0.02 US dollar per play, automatically payed.
That is definig ACCESS TO, I'd say.
Wouyld you EVER buy a CD anymore ?
Not me. Not ever.

Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 08-14-2006, 11:41 AM
meow2222@care2.com
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: UltraDMA CRC error rate below ttheshold value in SMART

kony wrote:

> At the 4 year mark he
> has indeed gotten a fair value out of it. At that point
> even if it does still work, it is relatively slow, and the
> liability of continuing to use it exceeds it's value.


blimey, I'd better put most of our perfectly good PCs in the skip then.
I dont understand this Newness Disease.


NT


Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 08-14-2006, 12:44 PM
kony
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: UltraDMA CRC error rate below ttheshold value in SMART

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 23:37:19 +0200, Osiris
<et57@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 18:52:07 -0400, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 22:59:54 +0200, Osiris
>><et57@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Hard Disk inspector reports a 40 Gb (Maxtor 6L040J2) the UltraDMS CRC
>>>error rate (index 199) value in the SMART table is well below its
>>>threshold value.
>>>Should I start worrying ?

>>
>>Are you sure you know how to use that software?
>>
>>Usually the issue is when the error rate goes well ABOVE the
>>threshold value, not well below it.
>>
>>>

>
>I don't think so: when values go BELOW threshold, a problem may occur.
>As long as they stay above, problems are unlikelier.
>they seem to count DOWN...
>http://www.almico.com/sfarticle.php?id=2
>
>But maybe you mean to say the same thing...
>
>I hope you do not need to re-interpret your own readings now...


Almico is not a HDD manufacturer. They decide how to use
SMART, all that is required to be standard is the query and
feedback of pass/fail AFAIK.

We're talking about a different value though, an absolute
thresold is one at which the drive is deemed unsuitable by
the manufacturer and in general scientific terms staying
below that threshold is a good thing. When talking about
0-255 as the article does, they have converted the value to
mean something else and the interpretation depends entirely
on the conversion process.

Regardless, again it is the HDD manufacturer who determines
when a change in value is significant to set the smart flag,
not a 3rd party program interpreted by a 4th party website
or a 4th party website interpreted by a 5th party user.

Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 08-14-2006, 12:47 PM
kony
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: UltraDMA CRC error rate below ttheshold value in SMART

On 14 Aug 2006 04:41:13 -0700, meow2222@care2.com wrote:

>kony wrote:
>
>> At the 4 year mark he
>> has indeed gotten a fair value out of it. At that point
>> even if it does still work, it is relatively slow, and the
>> liability of continuing to use it exceeds it's value.

>
>blimey, I'd better put most of our perfectly good PCs in the skip then.
>I dont understand this Newness Disease.



If the data isn't valuable, maybe loss isn't important.
Same with downtime, if it fails and the system can sit
unusable, the failure wasn't significant. On the other
hand, data is quite easily more valuable than the ~$50 it
might cost for an equivalent or better modern drive and
downtime likewise... if the two aren't worth far far more
than the $50, often the time to simply reinstall everything
and salvage what data can be salvaged is worth that.

Many people do understand this issue, server drives as well
as whole systems are often replaced in a corporate
environment _before_ they fail for this reason rather than
being too slow.

Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 08-14-2006, 12:48 PM
kony
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: UltraDMA CRC error rate below ttheshold value in SMART

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 23:50:55 +0200, Osiris
<et57@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 17:03:45 -0400, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 20:33:55 +0100, Frank Booth Snr
>><fbsnr@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Osiris wrote:
>>>> Hard Disk inspector reports a 40 Gb (Maxtor 6L040J2) the UltraDMS CRC
>>>> error rate (index 199) value in the SMART table is well below its
>>>> threshold value.
>>>> Should I start worrying ?
>>>>
>>>> strange enough, it is the drive that shows a temp of 37 celsius,
>>>> whereas the other maxtor shows 18 celsius.... same mounting position,
>>>> same air...
>>>To be frank, Maxtor are not a very reliable make of drive. Many
>>>including myself have had problems at one time or another. Currently my
>>>Dell is consistently giving my Maxtor (40GB) a SMART error on booting
>>>up, whereas Maxtor's own drive test shows a 'pass'. This has been going
>>>on for months now, but no HDD failure as yet. The concensus of opinion
>>>on Dell forums, where Maxtor is the make of drive usually supplied with
>>>the PC, is don't replace it with another Maxtor.

>>
>>
>>If a large % of Dell users are having this problem it tends
>>to suggest the system itself. IF Maxtors were dropping like
>>flies we would see a recall.
>>

>
>Any idea what that would cost ? and how it would relate to the profit
>made on a drive ?
>My guess is, it would then be cheaper to go bankrupt.


Guess whatever you like, it's no different than recalling
any other product.



Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 08-14-2006, 05:22 PM
Rod Speed
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: UltraDMA CRC error rate below ttheshold value in SMART

kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 23:37:19 +0200, Osiris
> <et57@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 18:52:07 -0400, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 22:59:54 +0200, Osiris
>>> <et57@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hard Disk inspector reports a 40 Gb (Maxtor 6L040J2) the UltraDMS
>>>> CRC error rate (index 199) value in the SMART table is well below
>>>> its threshold value.
>>>> Should I start worrying ?
>>>
>>> Are you sure you know how to use that software?
>>>
>>> Usually the issue is when the error rate goes well ABOVE the
>>> threshold value, not well below it.
>>>
>>>>

>>
>> I don't think so: when values go BELOW threshold, a problem may
>> occur. As long as they stay above, problems are unlikelier.
>> they seem to count DOWN...
>> http://www.almico.com/sfarticle.php?id=2
>>
>> But maybe you mean to say the same thing...
>>
>> I hope you do not need to re-interpret your own readings now...

>
> Almico is not a HDD manufacturer. They decide how to use
> SMART, all that is required to be standard is the query and
> feedback of pass/fail AFAIK.
>
> We're talking about a different value though, an absolute
> thresold is one at which the drive is deemed unsuitable by
> the manufacturer and in general scientific terms staying
> below that threshold is a good thing. When talking about
> 0-255 as the article does, they have converted the value to
> mean something else and the interpretation depends entirely
> on the conversion process.
>
> Regardless, again it is the HDD manufacturer who determines
> when a change in value is significant to set the smart flag,
> not a 3rd party program interpreted by a 4th party website
> or a 4th party website interpreted by a 5th party user.


That last is just plain wrong when the software analyses the
change in the value over time and also considers the threshold.
Most obviously with the reallocated sector count.



Reply With Quote
Reply


« Core 2 Duo PC keeps shutting down itself after 2 seconds and booting up nonstop | Fussy so and so »
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SMART error ..Must H.Disc be thrown out ? Trimble alt.comp.hardware 24 04-03-2007 06:13 AM
Re: Windows or Palm Based Smart Phone? Kevin Weaver alt.cellular.verizon 0 03-19-2007 07:14 PM
Can't enable SMART on RAID0 Raptors on Asus P5W DH Deluxe Synapse Syndrome alt.comp.hardware 10 02-07-2007 03:57 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:11 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45