On Sun, 27 Dec 2020 17:56:56 +0100, François Patte wrote:
> What is a "fairly low rate"? And beyond which rate do I have to be scared?
Usually, you would want the displayed value to be high, since the
underlying "rate" is mapped. If the shown value drops much, that would
be reason to be
On Sun, Dec 27, 2020 at 05:56:56PM +0100, François Patte wrote:
> What is a "fairly low rate"? And beyond which rate do I have to be scared?
As I understand it, it's totally manufacturer dependent and not usually well
documented. I think in general the advice is to ignore the "raw" values
unless
Le 27/12/2020 à 16:41, Matthew Miller a écrit :
On Sun, Dec 27, 2020 at 02:36:54PM +0100, François Patte wrote:
/dev/sda [SAT] :
Prefailure: Raw_Read_Error_Rate (1) changed to
79, 80,
As scary as this seems, this is generally normal. Raw read errors at some
fairly low rate
Le 27/12/2020 à 16:14, Michael Schwendt a écrit :
On Sun, 27 Dec 2020 14:36:54 +0100, François Patte wrote:
I have this alert in my watchlog report:
Have you used the smartctl tool from the smartmontools package yet as
to examine SMART data and perhaps run self-tests?
These line are from
On Sun, Dec 27, 2020 at 02:36:54PM +0100, François Patte wrote:
> /dev/sda [SAT] :
> Prefailure: Raw_Read_Error_Rate (1) changed to
> 79, 80,
As scary as this seems, this is generally normal. Raw read errors at some
fairly low rate (depending on the drive) are expected, and the new
On Sun, 27 Dec 2020 14:36:54 +0100, François Patte wrote:
> I have this alert in my watchlog report:
Have you used the smartctl tool from the smartmontools package yet as
to examine SMART data and perhaps run self-tests?
___
users mailing list --
Bonjour,
I have this alert in my watchlog report:
/dev/sda [SAT] :
Prefailure: Raw_Read_Error_Rate (1) changed to
79, 80,
Usage: Airflow_Temperature_Cel (190) changed to
71, 70, 71, 70, 71, 70, 69, 70, 71, 70, 71,
Usage: Hardware_ECC_Recovered (195) changed to
79,
