S.M.A.R.T. says that my drive will fail...now what?

M

mosin

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Sep 30, 2001
Messages
6,558
S.M.A.R.T. says that my drive will fail, so I backed up the data.
XP shows the volume as healthy. All the clusters and sectors are OK, and the speed is fine. Also, it is quiet.
Is there any possibility that the drive may live? Would a low level format be in order, or should I just toss it?
 
I got a SMART warning about an impending drive failure once, back in 1999 when I was an IT guy. We backed up the data on the drive and sat tight. The drive finally stopped working last summer when the machine it was in was obsoleted and they couldn't sell it to staff with that 'known defect'. Of the other fifty or sixty drives I've seen fail over the years, no SMART warnings.

My father also got a SMART warning back in 1998. He RMAed the drive after backing things up (companies actually did that, then). The replacement failed within a month, and he went through 4 or 5 more Maxtors that year. Lost all his data twice.

Anyway, SMART is a nice idea, bad implementation. Some firms may still allow you to RMA a drive with a SMART warning, but the unit you get back will likely be a refurb, and I'm sure you know the caveats with those. The best course of action is to do what you should anyway, make sure you have backups and hope for the best.
 
Thanks.
I think I'll see if it survives a low level format. If it does, and still checks OK, I'll carry on as usual.
 
Just an FYI, but a low level format won't clear SMART errors. I tried that once on a WD 40gig drive..

I beleive the actual SMART fault data is stored on a EEPROM on the circut board and not on the platters.

Nonetheless, a Low level format is a good idea.

Riley
 
Yeah, I figure it can't hurt. I was permanently deleting some files yesterday, so is it possible that I messed up the MFT, or something? Although the drive is empty, it shows that it has 1.56 gigabytes in use, but ckdsk shows the drive as being OK. What's with this? Does anyone have any other ideas?
 
Howdy Mosin, got your PM

well real low level formatting is only done at the factory these days, (see Servo Bursts
fake low level formatting is just a zero fill utility, but it should put the drive back to the original factory condition, with the exception of bad sectors that have been previously locked out (see defect mapping)

As I have said (probably too often, sorry) modern drives do not need to be low-level formatted by the end user, and in fact cannot be LLFed outside the factory due to their precision and complexity. However, it seems that the need to LLF hard disks on the part of users has never gone away. Like some primordial instinct, many PC users seem to have a fundamental desire to LLF their modern disks. Maybe it is built into the genetic code in some way yet undiscovered. ;^) In fact, even if it were possible, the vast majority of the time that someone "needs" to LLF a hard disk today, it is not really necessary. Many users jump quickly to wanting to try an "LLF" whenever they have a problem with their hard disk, much the way many jump to re-installing their operating system whenever it gives them trouble.
Click to expand...

Regarding SMART attributes
its useless for catastrophic failure, impact, headslap, head crash, power events, IC failure\electromigration
where it can be useful is in tracking the gradual degrading of various parameters. The problem comes with the prediction of exactly what those mean.

"Clearly, SMART is a useful tool but not one that is foolproof: it can detect some sorts of problems, but others it has no clue about. A good analogy for this feature would be to consider it like the warning lights on the dashboard of your car: something to pay attention to, but not to rely upon. You should not assume that because SMART generated an alert, there is definitely a drive problem, or conversely, that the lack of an alarm means the drive cannot possibly be having a problem. It certainly is no replacement for proper hard disk care and maintenance, or routine and current backups."
Click to expand...

my personal opinion is its more useful in a 24\7 stable environment, in other words a server thats always on in an AC environment where fewer variables can creep in, , and power is extremely regulated. Even then its interpretive. Not exactly the discription of your average enthusisats computer


I wouldnt ignore it, but would run the manufacturers diagnostic to check the drive, and find out exactly which parameter is causing the prediction, and of course you should always have good backup, that zero fill utility should get rid odf whatever is taking up that 1+GB of space ;)
 
Thanks boss. I knew you would have helpful info. Thanks to you other guys, too. This drive gets cleaned up, and into another rig. We can't have weird stuff on the main rig, now can we?

There's one thing about being [H]ard, and that's the fact that most of us have a few unused new drives around. ;)

UPDATE:
Well, whata' ya' know. I formatted the drive from within XP and SMART shows the drive as being healthy again. I must have screwed something up earlier, or the now recovered 1.56 gigs caused it all. Anyway, I seriously believe it was some sort of false alarm.
Live & learn. :)
 
mysterious

how did you delete the data before?
wonder if it was the MFT (and its mirror)
 
Here's what I think happened. Yesterday, I was playing around with a neat little program that I got from a link on the Software Forum called Restoration 2.5.14. Anyway, it has a wipe feature built in that I couldn't resist. I think it got a bit wild with the wiping, or somehow screwed up the MFT because it has an update tables option, too. I used the option.

So....S.M.A.R.T. errors aren't always permanent. Maybe an MFT error can cause them?

Moral: Don't go screwing around with something that isn't broken.
 
An MFST error shouldn't cause a SMART error. Drives and SMART don't care what you write on them or how you go about doing so. They just care that the unit puts the bits where it's supposed to and reads them back Ok.
 
Originally posted by Snugglebear
An MFST error shouldn't cause a SMART error. Drives and SMART don't care what you write on them or how you go about doing so. They just care that the unit puts the bits where it's supposed to and reads them back Ok.
Click to expand...
I know, but this is still pretty weird. It's that there weren't supposed to be 1.56 gigs there, and I am pretty sure that I caused it to happen. So, is it possible to "trick" the drive into thinking it screwed up, when the user actually did it?

I know, I know....
The thread is going downhill fast. :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top