SMART threshold check ... Failed

[name]

Hello.
Once more an issue with a maxtor drive, though hopefully this
is a minor quibble.
While running the maxtor powermax 4.21 diagnostic utility (from
a bootable rom) on a 300 gb maxtor disk, the "install confirmation"
test failed because the "SMART threshold check" failed.
However, the drive seems to operate fine and the "basic quick test"
didn't report any problems.
Is this SMART issue a serious problem? How can it be resolved?

thx for any feedback, kind regards, Niek

 

[Rod Speed]

Once more an issue with a maxtor drive,
though hopefully this is a minor quibble.

I doubt it.

While running the maxtor powermax 4.21 diagnostic utility (from
a bootable rom) on a 300 gb maxtor disk, the "install confirmation"
test failed because the "SMART threshold check" failed.
Urk.

However, the drive seems to operate fine and
the "basic quick test" didn't report any problems.

SMART attempts to anticipate drive failure.

Is this SMART issue a serious problem?

Yes, if its real.

How can it be resolved?

I'd check the raw SMART data with Everest from
http://www.lavalys.com/products/overview.php?pid=1&lang=en
and if that shows real problems, and it likely
should, I'd return the drive under warranty.

 

[Arno Wagner]

Hello.
Once more an issue with a maxtor drive, though hopefully this
is a minor quibble.
While running the maxtor powermax 4.21 diagnostic utility (from
a bootable rom) on a 300 gb maxtor disk, the "install confirmation"
test failed because the "SMART threshold check" failed.
However, the drive seems to operate fine and the "basic quick test"
didn't report any problems.
Is this SMART issue a serious problem? How can it be resolved?

Might be. Better assume it is. Resolution is typically
a drive replacement. I have had drives with problems before where
the quick test did not fail. At least run a long test.

It would also be a good idea to have a look at the actual SMART
values (e.g. with smartctl) and maybe post them here. In the
meantime expect the drive to fail, i.e. don't depend on it in
any way.

Arno

 

[name]

Might be. Better assume it is. Resolution is typically
a drive replacement. I have had drives with problems before where
the quick test did not fail. At least run a long test.

I already wrote maxtor about it (asking them if it might be a bug in
the diagnostic utility or if a replacement would be advisable). I ran
all the other tests (short and long) and they didn't report any
problems.

It would also be a good idea to have a look at the actual SMART
values (e.g. with smartctl) and maybe post them here. In the
meantime expect the drive to fail, i.e. don't depend on it in
any way.

Arno

The smart values can be found here:
http://www.ibbu.nl/~nsprakel/smart300.jpg

I wouldn't know what to make of all that stuff myself however.
But in the other thread (about another maxtor drive giving problems in
a USB enclosure) it was confirmed it looked ok.

This one didn't, but since the warranty has run out, I'll try to fix it
(after backing up data) and try to live with it:
http://www.ibbu.nl/~nsprakel/smart120.jpg

This is the maxtor drive that was giving problems in the usb enclosure
and I will mail it to maxtor since the warranty is still valid:
http://www.ibbu.nl/~nsprakel/smart200.jpg

All three maxtor drives were giving trouble with the diagnostics
utility but I'm sure glad it seems the 300 gb drive seems to be ok
after all.

 

[Arno Wagner]

The smart values can be found here:
http://www.ibbu.nl/~nsprakel/smart300.jpg

I wouldn't know what to make of all that stuff myself however.
But in the other thread (about another maxtor drive giving problems in
a USB enclosure) it was confirmed it looked ok.

Looks ok to me too.

This one didn't, but since the warranty has run out, I'll try to fix it
(after backing up data) and try to live with it:
http://www.ibbu.nl/~nsprakel/smart120.jpg

Whay that? Looks ok too.

This is the maxtor drive that was giving problems in the usb enclosure
and I will mail it to maxtor since the warranty is still valid:
http://www.ibbu.nl/~nsprakel/smart200.jpg

Does not necessary look like the drive is failing. The one
thing truely off is the spin-up time. Maybe too weak a
power supply on the enclosure?

Arno

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

I already wrote maxtor about it (asking them if it might be a bug in
the diagnostic utility or if a replacement would be advisable). I ran
all the other tests (short and long) and they didn't report any
problems.


The smart values can be found here:
http://www.ibbu.nl/~nsprakel/smart300.jpg

I wouldn't know what to make of all that stuff myself however.
But in the other thread (about another maxtor drive giving problems in
a USB enclosure) it was confirmed it looked ok.

This one didn't, but since the warranty has run out, I'll try to fix it
(after backing up data) and try to live with it:
http://www.ibbu.nl/~nsprakel/smart120.jpg

This is the maxtor drive that was giving problems in the usb enclosure
and I will mail it to maxtor since the warranty is still valid:
http://www.ibbu.nl/~nsprakel/smart200.jpg

All three maxtor drives were giving trouble with the diagnostics utility

but I'm sure glad it seems the 300 gb drive seems to be ok after all.

With 4197 hardware ECC recovered errors?
That is sectors that were read needing correction.

 

[name]

Folkert Rienstra schreef:

With 4197 hardware ECC recovered errors?
That is sectors that were read needing correction.

Hmmm, perhaps that 300 gb drive ought to be replaced as well
afterall... maxtor also replied that the error reported by their
diagnostic utility is genuine and the drive needs to be replaced.

 

[name]

Arno Wagner schreef:

Looks ok to me too.


Whay that? Looks ok too.


Does not necessary look like the drive is failing. The one
thing truely off is the spin-up time. Maybe too weak a
power supply on the enclosure?

Arno

But isn't maxtors own diagnostic utility the ultimate authority to
trust on the health of their diskdrives? All three drives failed one or
more tests.
One thing I have learned by now is that the diskcheck in windows XP is
fairly useless since it was unable to detect any errors whatsoever for
each of the three drives (including a successful surface scan for the
200 gb drive).

 

[Arno Wagner]

With 4197 hardware ECC recovered errors?
That is sectors that were read needing correction.

 

[Arno Wagner]

Folkert Rienstra schreef:

Arno Wagner wrote:
[...]
All three maxtor drives were giving trouble with the diagnostics utility

but I'm sure glad it seems the 300 gb drive seems to be ok after all.

With 4197 hardware ECC recovered errors?
That is sectors that were read needing correction.

Hmmm, perhaps that 300 gb drive ought to be replaced as well
afterall... maxtor also replied that the error reported by their
diagnostic utility is genuine and the drive needs to be replaced.

Hardware ECC recoverd does not necessarily mean defect sector.
On reading the heads are positioned very fast and some sectors
will not be read correctly. ECC can be faster than a re-read.
The number indicating the defective sectors recoverd from is the
reallocated sector count.

Arno

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Previously Folkert Rienstra <[email protected]> wrote:

Oops, I fell out of your killfile, Arnie?

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Folkert Rienstra schreef:

Arno Wagner wrote:
[...]
All three maxtor drives were giving trouble with the diagnostics utility

but I'm sure glad it seems the 300 gb drive seems to be ok after all.

With 4197 hardware ECC recovered errors?
That is sectors that were read needing correction.

Hmmm, perhaps that 300 gb drive ought to be replaced as well
afterall... maxtor also replied that the error reported by their
diagnostic utility is genuine and the drive needs to be replaced.

Hardware ECC recovered does not necessarily mean defect sector.

Nope, it doesn't. But it can mean the onset of bad sectors.

On reading the heads are positioned very fast and some sectors
will not be read correctly. ECC can be faster than a re-read.

Yup, but ECC recovered also doesn't necessarily mean that no retries
occurred.

The number indicating the defective sectors recovered from is the
reallocated sector count.

No, it is not. Those are the ones that exceeded a certain retry count.

 

[name]

Folkert Rienstra schreef:


Hmmm, perhaps that 300 gb drive ought to be replaced as well
afterall... maxtor also replied that the error reported by their
diagnostic utility is genuine and the drive needs to be replaced.

I returned the drive (it was only 2 months old) and got an identical
replacement.
In fact it was so identical that it generated exactly the same SMART
threshold check
failure when I tested it again using the PowerMax diagnostics utility
(though the drive
had a different serial number of course).
I guess either they have a whole batch of faulty drives at the computer
store where
I bought it or there is some kind of bug in the PowerMax diagnostics
utility.
Don't know what to do about it, but I wrote maxtor again to ask them
for an explanation
and I'll contact the computer store as well. Perhaps I'll also test the
drive in a different
computer to see if that yields the same failed "Installation
Confirmation" test.

 

[Rod Speed]

I returned the drive (it was only 2 months old) and got an identical
replacement. In fact it was so identical that it generated exactly
the same SMART threshold check failure when I tested it again
using the PowerMax diagnostics utility (though the drive
had a different serial number of course).

I guess either they have a whole batch of faulty
drives at the computer store where I bought it

It wont be that with the SMART data being fine.

or there is some kind of bug in the PowerMax diagnostics utility.

Yep, Maxtor is utterly notorious for that.

Don't know what to do about it, but I wrote maxtor again to ask
them for an explanation and I'll contact the computer store as well.

Try an older version of PowerMax.

Perhaps I'll also test the drive in a different computer to see
if that yields the same failed "Installation Confirmation" test.

Yeah, worth trying if its not too much effort, its unlikely that
that version of PowerMax fails in all systems with those drives.

 

[Arno Wagner]

name wrote: [...]

I returned the drive (it was only 2 months old) and got an identical
replacement. In fact it was so identical that it generated exactly
the same SMART threshold check failure when I tested it again using
the PowerMax diagnostics utility (though the drive had a different
serial number of course). I guess either they have a whole batch of
faulty drives at the computer store where I bought it or there is
some kind of bug in the PowerMax diagnostics utility. Don't know
what to do about it, but I wrote maxtor again to ask them for an
explanation and I'll contact the computer store as well. Perhaps
I'll also test the drive in a different computer to see if that
yields the same failed "Installation Confirmation" test.

Well, a bug in PowerMax would be consistent with the SMART values
looking fine.Could also be some other hardware issue. The test in a
different computer is certainly a good idea.

Arno

 

[name]

name wrote: [...]

I returned the drive (it was only 2 months old) and got an identical
replacement. In fact it was so identical that it generated exactly
the same SMART threshold check failure when I tested it again using
the PowerMax diagnostics utility (though the drive had a different
serial number of course). I guess either they have a whole batch of
faulty drives at the computer store where I bought it or there is
some kind of bug in the PowerMax diagnostics utility. Don't know
what to do about it, but I wrote maxtor again to ask them for an
explanation and I'll contact the computer store as well. Perhaps
I'll also test the drive in a different computer to see if that
yields the same failed "Installation Confirmation" test.

Well, a bug in PowerMax would be consistent with the SMART values
looking fine.Could also be some other hardware issue. The test in a
different computer is certainly a good idea.

Arno

In another computer, I got the same error and it only generated that
particular error for the 300 gb maxtor drive and not for the 200 and
120 gb maxtor drives.
Both computers are Compaqs though (one Evo D310 Mt P4 2300 and one EXD
P3 800).

 

[John Doe]

troll

Path: newsdbm06.news.prodigy.com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!news.glorb.com!indigo.octanews.net!teal.octanews.net!green.octanews.net!news-out.octanews.net!authen.white.readfreenews.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
Reply-To: "Folkert Rienstra" <folkertdotrienstra freeler.nl>
From: "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to myweb.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
References: <1123042649.317748.136740 o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <3ld79pF128brjU2 individual.net> <1123120746.165160.7100 g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <42f217a4$0$34237$892e7fe2 authen.white.readfreenews.net> <3lf8keF12ehr0U1 individual.net>
Subject: Re: SMART threshold check ... Failed
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 00:25:01 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <42f2b25d$1$53927$892e7fe2 authen.white.readfreenews.net>
Organization: Read Free News
NNTP-Posting-Date: 04 Aug 2005 19:27:09 CDT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 69ea8736.authen.white.readfreenews.net
X-Trace: DXC=8M=Q i=ebSH3P5f[MYmg`Jb_[jUcf=dBGPH=X44`;MPIogH\o?ZgNNJXYL964Q<E6<KYYbQK`RB2PNMbRhVkmE;dohU=Gh=^M
X-Complaints-To: abuse readfreenews.net
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage:356176

[QUOTE="Arno Wagner"]
Previously Folkert Rienstra <see_reply-to myweb.nl> wrote:

Oops, I fell out of your killfile, Arnie?
[/QUOTE]