Seagate: Fine 1 day, bad the next

  • Thread starter Thread starter uclamathguy
  • Start date Start date
U

uclamathguy

My Seagate Barracuda IV was working great. A week later I returned home
and I get "Disk read error" on boot. The system was never used during
the week. I run SeaTools on the drive and I get an endless list of bad
sectors. I am running a surface scan and it is running the "resolving
sector/LBA" process. It started at 11pm last night, and it is 9:15am
right now: it is 3% complete but has not hanged. Is it typical for this
process to take so long???

I can't understand this. Is it possible that something else is wrong
and SeaTools is reading it as a sector issue? There is NO clicking
sound either.

Ryan
 
(e-mail address removed) wrote
My Seagate Barracuda IV was working great. A week
later I returned home and I get "Disk read error" on
boot. The system was never used during the week.
Click to expand...

Thats not an unusual way to fail for a hard drive.
I run SeaTools on the drive and I get an endless list of bad sectors.
Click to expand...

Then there isnt a lot of point doing anything else with
the drive. Just return it under warranty or replace it etc.
I am running a surface scan and it is running the "resolving sector/LBA"
process. It started at 11pm last night, and it is 9:15am right now: it is 3%
complete but has not hanged. Is it typical for this process to take so long???
Click to expand...

With lots of bad sectors, yes.
I can't understand this. Is it possible that something else
is wrong and SeaTools is reading it as a sector issue?
Click to expand...

Nope. Its getting it right, there are lots of bad sectors
and that very slow result you are getting with a surface
scan is evidence of the same thing, lots of bad sectors.
There is NO clicking sound either.
Click to expand...

Some drives are much quieter when recalibrating than others.
 
Previously said:
My Seagate Barracuda IV was working great. A week later I returned home
and I get "Disk read error" on boot. The system was never used during
the week. I run SeaTools on the drive and I get an endless list of bad
sectors. I am running a surface scan and it is running the "resolving
sector/LBA" process. It started at 11pm last night, and it is 9:15am
right now: it is 3% complete but has not hanged. Is it typical for this
process to take so long???
Click to expand...
I can't understand this. Is it possible that something else is wrong
and SeaTools is reading it as a sector issue? There is NO clicking
sound either.
Click to expand...

Was the disk subject to mechanical shock?

The only other issue that could turn up as a sector issue I can
think of is a dying PSU.

Arno
 
My Seagate Barracuda IV was working great. A week later I returned home
and I get "Disk read error" on boot. The system was never used during
the week. I run SeaTools on the drive and I get an endless list of bad
sectors. I am running a surface scan and it is running the "resolving
sector/LBA" process. It started at 11pm last night, and it is 9:15am
right now: it is 3% complete but has not hanged. Is it typical for this
process to take so long???

I can't understand this. Is it possible that something else is wrong
and SeaTools is reading it as a sector issue? There is NO clicking
sound either.

Ryan
Click to expand...

I don't know if SeaTools can be wrong, but if you're really asking if your
working drive can just go bad overnight and still produce no horrible
seeking sounds, then the answer is yes. Is there a way to make SeaTools
just report the SMART status without going through an exhaustive procedure
first? You could use a 3rd party tool to report that like Everest or
SANDRA.
 
Arno Wagner said:
Yes, I keep hearing that, but I always experienced warning symptoms
before and many other epople did.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant to whether it may well have happened in his case.

Most obviously with a sudden partial failure of the read
electronics so say the read amplifier gain has gone bad.
 
Irrelevant to whether it may well have happened in his case.
Click to expand...

Huh? And why is that? Ever heard of statistics? Obviously not....
Most obviously with a sudden partial failure of the read
electronics so say the read amplifier gain has gone bad.
Click to expand...

Non-power electronics does very seldomly fail suddenly since the tube
days are over, unless operated seriously out of spec. The typical
pattern is allmost allways a slower degradation.

Arno
 
Huh? And why is that? Ever heard of statistics? Obviously not....
Click to expand...

Statistics are completely irrevant to what he has seen.
Non-power electronics does very seldomly fail suddenly since
the tube days are over, unless operated seriously out of spec.
The typical pattern is allmost allways a slower degradation.
Click to expand...

Wrong. You still get sudden failures, most
obviously if one of the bond wires comes off etc.
 
Statistics are completely irrevant to what he has seen.
Click to expand...

As I said...
Wrong. You still get sudden failures, most
obviously if one of the bond wires comes off etc.
Click to expand...

That would be a mechanical or electrical failure not an electronic
one.

Arno
 
Arno said:
As I said...



That would be a mechanical or electrical failure not an electronic
one.
Click to expand...

Only if burning out the filament in a tube counts as a "mechanical or
electrical failure not an electronic one".
 
Arno said:
Previously J. Clarke said:
Arno Wagner wrote:
[...]
Irrelevant to whether it may well have happened in his case.

Huh? And why is that? Ever heard of statistics? Obviously not....

Statistics are completely irrevant to what he has seen.

As I said...

Most obviously with a sudden partial failure of the read
electronics so say the read amplifier gain has gone bad.

Non-power electronics does very seldomly fail suddenly since
the tube days are over, unless operated seriously out of spec.
The typical pattern is allmost allways a slower degradation.

Wrong. You still get sudden failures, most
obviously if one of the bond wires comes off etc.

That would be a mechanical or electrical failure not an electronic
one.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Only if burning out the filament in a tube counts as a "mechanical or
electrical failure not an electronic one".
Click to expand...

That is why I said "modern" electronics....
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. In both cases (broken filament in a tube or
broken bond wire in an IC) the actual failure is the same, a physically
broken wire. Neither is field repairable except by replacing the IC or the
tube. If you want to call that failure mode in an IC a "mechanical or
electrical failure" and in a tube to be an "electronic failure" be my guest
but I don't think you're going to find very many people who are willing to
go along with that kind of hair-splitting.

Now, you're right that modern electronic devices _tend_ to give warning
before failure, but a tendency is not a certainty and they can fail with no
warning at all. Even more annoying, they can fail
intermittently--sometimes the broken wire will make enough contact to work
for a bit.
 
Previously J. Clarke said:
Arno Wagner wrote:
Previously J. Clarke said:
Arno Wagner wrote:
Click to expand...
[...]
Irrelevant to whether it may well have happened in his case.

Huh? And why is that? Ever heard of statistics? Obviously not....

Statistics are completely irrevant to what he has seen.

As I said...

Most obviously with a sudden partial failure of the read
electronics so say the read amplifier gain has gone bad.

Non-power electronics does very seldomly fail suddenly since
the tube days are over, unless operated seriously out of spec.
The typical pattern is allmost allways a slower degradation.

Wrong. You still get sudden failures, most
obviously if one of the bond wires comes off etc.

That would be a mechanical or electrical failure not an electronic
one.
Click to expand...
Only if burning out the filament in a tube counts as a "mechanical or
electrical failure not an electronic one".
Click to expand...

That is why I said "modern" electronics....
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
You're missing the point. In both cases (broken filament in a tube or
broken bond wire in an IC) the actual failure is the same, a physically
broken wire. Neither is field repairable except by replacing the IC or the
tube. If you want to call that failure mode in an IC a "mechanical or
electrical failure" and in a tube to be an "electronic failure" be my guest
but I don't think you're going to find very many people who are willing to
go along with that kind of hair-splitting.
Click to expand...

Actually in a modern IC this failure mode is allmost unheard of. It
just does not happen in practice often, the gold-wires used are extremely
reliable. In tubes, on the other hand, this is the main failure mode.
Tubes break down all the time because they loose their heaters. It is
as bit silly to imply these two events are of equal significance.
Now, you're right that modern electronic devices _tend_ to give warning
before failure, but a tendency is not a certainty and they can fail with no
warning at all. Even more annoying, they can fail
intermittently--sometimes the broken wire will make enough contact to work
for a bit.
Click to expand...

Of course. Still the original discussion was about what is likely and
what not.

Arno
 
Arno Wagner said:
Previously J. Clarke said:
Arno Wagner wrote:
Arno Wagner wrote:

[...]
Irrelevant to whether it may well have happened in his case.

Huh? And why is that? Ever heard of statistics? Obviously
not....

Statistics are completely irrevant to what he has seen.

As I said...

Most obviously with a sudden partial failure of the read
electronics so say the read amplifier gain has gone bad.

Non-power electronics does very seldomly fail suddenly since
the tube days are over, unless operated seriously out of spec.
The typical pattern is allmost allways a slower degradation.

Wrong. You still get sudden failures, most
obviously if one of the bond wires comes off etc.

That would be a mechanical or electrical failure not an electronic
one.

Only if burning out the filament in a tube counts as a "mechanical
or electrical failure not an electronic one".

That is why I said "modern" electronics....
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
You're missing the point. In both cases (broken filament in a tube
or broken bond wire in an IC) the actual failure is the same, a
physically broken wire. Neither is field repairable except by
replacing the IC or the tube. If you want to call that failure mode
in an IC a "mechanical or electrical failure" and in a tube to be an
"electronic failure" be my guest but I don't think you're going to
find very many people who are willing to go along with that kind of
hair-splitting.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Actually in a modern IC this failure mode is allmost unheard of.
Wrong.

It just does not happen in practice often,
the gold-wires used are extremely reliable.
Click to expand...

It isnt the wire that's the problem, its the bond to the ic that fails.
In tubes, on the other hand, this is the main failure mode.
Click to expand...

Wrong again. The main failure mode is
gradual loss off emissivity by the filament/cathode.
Tubes break down all the time because they loose their heaters.
It is as bit silly to imply these two events are of equal significance.
Click to expand...

He never said that, just that both see sudden failures.
Of course. Still the original discussion was about what is likely and what
not.
Click to expand...

Wrong again. It was actually about what could have happened to his drive.
 
Arno Wagner said:
Actually in a modern IC this failure mode is allmost unheard of. It
just does not happen in practice often, the gold-wires used are extremely
reliable. In tubes, on the other hand, this is the main failure mode.
Tubes break down all the time because they loose their heaters. It is
as bit silly to imply these two events are of equal significance.
Click to expand...
Yes, R/W endec chips fail all the time.
They get very hot, and some even sit on the actuator, subject to vibration.
Also common is a wire break between this chip and the head.
All sudden failures as described in the OP.
 
Back
Top