September 13, 201312 yr Hi all, I just precleared six 4TB drives. All passed with no problems except one which returned the following: Disk Temperature: 32C, Elapsed Time: 19:51:31 ========================================================================1.13 == == Disk /dev/sde has been verified precleared == with a starting sector of 1 ============================================================================ ** Changed attributes in files: /tmp/smart_start_sde /tmp/smart_finish_sde ATTRIBUTE NEW_VAL OLD_VAL FAILURE_THRESHOLD STATUS RAW_VALUE Raw_Read_Error_Rate = 120 109 6 ok 235185432 Spin_Retry_Count = 100 100 97 near_thresh 0 End-to-End_Error = 100 100 99 near_thresh 0 Reported_Uncorrect = 48 74 0 ok 52 Airflow_Temperature_Cel = 68 70 45 near_thresh 32 Temperature_Celsius = 32 30 0 ok 32 No SMART attributes are FAILING_NOW 48 sectors were pending re-allocation before the start of the preclear. 64 sectors are pending re-allocation at the end of the preclear, a change of 16 in the number of sectors pending re-allocation. 0 sectors had been re-allocated before the start of the preclear. 0 sectors are re-allocated at the end of the preclear, the number of sectors re-allocated did not change. Should I RMA this disk given that it's brand new, or is this kind of thing normal? Thanks in advance
September 13, 201312 yr You can RMA it or keep running preclear's until your pending sector count is zero. Don't use it in your array until the pending count is zero. Personally since pending sectors went up (48 before - 64 after) not down on the preclear - I would RMA it.
September 13, 201312 yr Agree with Bob => although modern drives have spare sectors precisely so they can remap defective areas, I nevertheless do NOT keep new drives that start out this way. If I get ANY non-zero re-allocated sector counters in the pre-clear, I RMA the drive.
September 14, 201312 yr Author Thanks guys. I've started an RMA which shouldn't be a problem. Out of curiosity I restarted a preclear -W and it failed immediately filling my log with garbage. It's great to be able to catch these problems before they become array data problems. Though, I do wish that Seagate had better QA.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.