[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Fedora was wrong (I think) (was Re: "One or more disks are failing" ?)

On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 00:25:02 -0700, Scott wrote:

> On 07/06/2009 12:05 AM, Frank Murphy wrote:
> > On 06/07/09 07:57, Scott Beamer wrote:
> >> So last night I booted into Windows. And I got my hand on a program (GUI
> >> based) that gives you all the SMART stats in slightly better plain
> >> English. There were no warnings of demise of any type (I'm back in Linux
> >> now and the program name escapes me, but it's not really important).
> >>
> >> In any event, just to be sure, I installed Ubuntu today (zapping the
> >> Fedora partitions) and ran the test again.
> >
> > And you trust Windose and Ubuntu.  Mwaahaaaahhaa
> >
> >
> > Frank
> >
> >
> > Sorry had to do it. :D
> >
> LOL.
> I trust Debian and Mandriva as well.

Funnily, you posted a SMART report that shows the same values as before.
A self-test that ended with a read failure. One sector that the drive has
failed to reallocate/replace. Two sectors that have not been
reallocated/replaced yet. Four reallocated sectors is not much of a
threat, but you still need to observe that this value doesn't increase

> http://bit.ly/hard-drive-is-in-fact-not-dying
Why did you highlight the wrong lines?

> Only Fedora had been raising the 
> alarm over the past month. :)

To understand why a component raised the alarm you need to examine what
values it looked at.
> And someone else earlier in this thread mentioned that he was convinced 
> it was a bug and filed a (redhat) bug report some time ago.

There are some reports

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]