SMART threshold check ... Failed

Name

Distinguished
Jan 12, 2003
160
0
18,680
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

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
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

name <dohduhdah@gmail.com> wrote

> 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.
 

Name

Distinguished
Jan 12, 2003
160
0
18,680
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Arno Wagner wrote:
> Previously name <dohduhdah@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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.

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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Previously name <dohduhdah@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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

Distinguished
Jan 12, 2003
160
0
18,680
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Folkert Rienstra schreef:

> "name" <dohduhdah@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1123120746.165160.7100@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> > Arno Wagner wrote:
> > > Previously name <dohduhdah@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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.
> >
> > 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.
>
> 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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Previously name <dohduhdah@gmail.com> wrote:

> Arno Wagner wrote:
>> Previously name <dohduhdah@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>> 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.

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
 

Name

Distinguished
Jan 12, 2003
160
0
18,680
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Arno Wagner schreef:

> Previously name <dohduhdah@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Arno Wagner wrote:
> >> Previously name <dohduhdah@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
> >> 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.
>
> 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

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).
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"name" <dohduhdah@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1123120746.165160.7100@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> Arno Wagner wrote:
> > Previously name <dohduhdah@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
>
> 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.

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

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Previously Folkert Rienstra <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
> "name" <dohduhdah@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1123120746.165160.7100@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
>> Arno Wagner wrote:
>> > Previously name <dohduhdah@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > 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.
>>
>> 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.

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

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Previously name <dohduhdah@gmail.com> wrote:

> Folkert Rienstra schreef:

>> "name" <dohduhdah@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1123120746.165160.7100@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
>> > Arno Wagner wrote:
>> > > Previously name <dohduhdah@gmail.com> 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
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:3lf8keF12ehr0U1@individual.net
> Previously Folkert Rienstra <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:

Oops, I fell out of your killfile, Arnie?

> > "name" <dohduhdah@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1123120746.165160.7100@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> > > Arno Wagner wrote:
> > > > Previously name <dohduhdah@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> > With 4197 hardware ECC recovered errors?
> > That is sectors that were read needing correction.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Arno Wagner" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:3lf8onF12ehr0U2@individual.net
> Previously name <dohduhdah@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Folkert Rienstra schreef:
>
> > > "name" <dohduhdah@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1123120746.165160.7100@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> > > > Arno Wagner wrote:
> > > > > Previously name <dohduhdah@gmail.com> 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.

>
> Arno
 

Name

Distinguished
Jan 12, 2003
160
0
18,680
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

name wrote:
> Folkert Rienstra schreef:
>
> > "name" <dohduhdah@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1123120746.165160.7100@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> > > Arno Wagner wrote:
> > > > Previously name <dohduhdah@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > 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.

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.
 

Name

Distinguished
Jan 12, 2003
160
0
18,680
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Arno Wagner wrote:
> Previously name <dohduhdah@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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).
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Previously name <dohduhdah@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

name <dohduhdah@gmail.com> wrote:
> name wrote:
>> Folkert Rienstra schreef:
>>
>>> "name" <dohduhdah@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1123120746.165160.7100@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
>>>> Arno Wagner wrote:
>>>>> Previously name <dohduhdah@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.

> 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.