Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?
On 1/5/24 21:10, Charles Curley wrote: On Fri, 5 Jan 2024 17:25:48 -0800 David Christensen wrote: I would be curious to know if a secure erase forces the pending sector issue and, if so, what the result is. An interesting thought. Alas, I am far enough along on re-installing that I do not want to try it. Sorry. I suggest taking an image (backup) with dd(1), Clonezilla, etc., when you're done. This will allow you to restore the image later -- to roll-back a change you do not like, to recovery from a disaster, to clone the image to another device, to facilitate experiments, (such as doing a secure erase to see if it resolves the SSD pending sector issue), etc.. If you also keep your system configuration files in a version control system, restoring an image is faster than wipe/ fresh install/ configure/ restore data. David
Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?
On Fri, 5 Jan 2024 17:25:48 -0800 David Christensen wrote: > I would be curious to know if a secure erase forces the pending > sector issue and, if so, what the result is. An interesting thought. Alas, I am far enough along on re-installing that I do not want to try it. Sorry. -- Does anybody read signatures any more? https://charlescurley.com https://charlescurley.com/blog/
Secure erase [was: Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?]
On 06/01/2024 08:25, David Christensen wrote: I like to do a secure erase before re-deploying an SSD. The UEFI ROM firmware in my newer Dell computers provides an option to make secure erase easy. Other choices include an SSD manufacturer toolkit or install/ live/ rescue media with the right tools. I have seen a couple of warnings concerning hdparm, but I am unsure concerning current state of affairs. Maybe something has changed. https://archive.kernel.org/oldwiki/ata.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/ATA_Secure_Erase.html> - Do not attempt to do this through a USB interface! - Do not set the password to an empty string or NULL. OBSOLETE CONTENT This wiki has been archived and the content is no longer updated.
Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?
On 1/5/24 15:20, Charles Curley wrote: On Fri, 5 Jan 2024 21:01:28 + Andy Smith wrote: So has this coaxed the drive into reducing its pending sector count to zero or does that still say 1? Last I looked, it was still at 1. When I finish my reinstallation, I will look again. I like to do a secure erase before re-deploying an SSD. The UEFI ROM firmware in my newer Dell computers provides an option to make secure erase easy. Other choices include an SSD manufacturer toolkit or install/ live/ rescue media with the right tools. It is also useful to have a hot-swap drive rack and matching port, as powering down, installing the target drive, powering up, and booting an OS (on different media) can result in locked drive security. I save 'smartctl -x ...' output to text files and check them into a version control system. This facilitates looking for changes and trends over time. I would be curious to know if a secure erase forces the pending sector issue and, if so, what the result is. David
Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?
On Fri, 5 Jan 2024 21:01:28 + Andy Smith wrote: > So has this coaxed the drive into reducing its pending sector count > to zero or does that still say 1? Last I looked, it was still at 1. When I finish my reinstallation, I will look again. > > I have had drives in the past that never decremented it even though > they had clearly done a remap, and others that took a long time > (weeks) to get around to doing so. As the Zen master said, we will see. -- Does anybody read signatures any more? https://charlescurley.com https://charlescurley.com/blog/
Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?
Hello, On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 04:27:54PM -0700, Charles Curley wrote: > OOPS! -w is the destructive test. I now have a hard drive full of 0x00s. > I should have used the -n option. However, it reported no failures. So has this coaxed the drive into reducing its pending sector count to zero or does that still say 1? I have had drives in the past that never decremented it even though they had clearly done a remap, and others that took a long time (weeks) to get around to doing so. Thanks, Andy -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?
On 3 Jan 2024 13:25 -0700, from charlescur...@charlescurley.com (Charles
Curley):
>> As a background process, try running something like
>>
>> # ionice find / -xdev -type f -exec cat {} + >/dev/null
>
> That would only reach files on the partition where it is run.
I covered that on the next few lines, which you choose not to quote.
> Since there is another operating system on this drive,
That kind of information might be helpful to include up front.
> and there are parts of
> the drive normally inaccessible to any operating system,
That's true, but it would have told you about any error in any
accessible data _and_ also told you which file or directory was
affected if that was the case. If the error is in an inaccessible
portion of the drive and the system is working normally aside from a
note in SMART data, then it would stand to reason that the error would
be in an unused location; thereby not likely to affect usage (because
a known bad spot would be reallocated elsewhere by the firmware on the
next write).
Also, badblocks too will only deal with user-accessible blocks; if the
drive already had remapped a bad location, for example as a part of a
write to an identified bad block, the original error would be
invisible to badblocks even if it still was an error.
On 3 Jan 2024 16:27 -0700, from charlescur...@charlescurley.com (Charles
Curley):
> OOPS! -w is the destructive test. I now have a hard drive full of 0x00s.
After restoring your most recent backup, consider doing a fstrim to
TRIM unused blocks.
--
Michael Kjörling 🔗 https://michael.kjorling.se
“Remember when, on the Internet, nobody cared that you were a dog?”
Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?
On 04/01/2024 03:25, Charles Curley wrote: I decided instead to boot to a USB stick and run badblocks. The read-only test took 12 minutes and reported no errors. I now have a writing test (-w) running. It has reported no failures on its first pass. Is badblock writing test useful for SSD taking into account wear leveling? Each write should be mapped to another physical address. All errors should be handled by firmware. To test low-end USB pen drives and SD cards there is the f3 (Fight Flash Fraud or Fight Fake Flash) tool, however such test should not be necessary for a SATA SSD. Have you checked that no firmware update is available for this drive? I have experienced just a few failures of HDD. It may be irrelevant for SSD, but in the case of HDD I would replace the disk reporting Current_Pending_Sector as soon as possible. It seems, repeating reports from smartd are intentional. On the other hand the "VALUE" has not decreased and is still 100, and the attribute is not marked as "pre-fail". Perhaps there is not reason to worry to much. I am unsure concerning accounting if an error happens during reading a file then the file is deleted without overwriting and the address range is marked unused (trimmed).
Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?
On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 11:58:54 +0100 wrote: > > > > OOPS! -w is the destructive test. I now have a hard drive full of > > 0x00s. I should have used the -n option. However, it reported no > > failures. > > Ouch, I hope you had a backup. All the essential stuff, yes. -- Does anybody read signatures any more? https://charlescurley.com https://charlescurley.com/blog/
Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?
On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 04:27:54PM -0700, Charles Curley wrote: > On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 13:25:26 -0700 > Charles Curley wrote: > > > I now have a writing test (-w) running. It has reported no failures on > > its first pass. > > OOPS! -w is the destructive test. I now have a hard drive full of 0x00s. > I should have used the -n option. However, it reported no failures. Ouch, I hope you had a backup. > -- > Does anybody read signatures any more? I *never* do. Cheers -- t signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?
On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 13:25:26 -0700 Charles Curley wrote: > I now have a writing test (-w) running. It has reported no failures on > its first pass. OOPS! -w is the destructive test. I now have a hard drive full of 0x00s. I should have used the -n option. However, it reported no failures. -- Does anybody read signatures any more? https://charlescurley.com https://charlescurley.com/blog/
Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?
On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 11:05:10 +
Michael Kjörling <2695bd53d...@ewoof.net> wrote:
> Since both tests finished without
> finding any errors, there _should_ have been no unreadable sectors.
Agree.
>
> I'm inclined to believe that your drive is fibbing SMART data.
Sigh. I am inclined to agree. Obviously they didn't hire me to write
the firmware on the drive.
>
> As a background process, try running something like
>
> # ionice find / -xdev -type f -exec cat {} + >/dev/null
That would only reach files on the partition where it is run. Since
there is another operating system on this drive, and there are parts of
the drive normally inaccessible to any operating system, I decided
instead to boot to a USB stick and run badblocks. The read-only test
took 12 minutes and reported no errors.
I now have a writing test (-w) running. It has reported no failures on
its first pass.
--
Does anybody read signatures any more?
https://charlescurley.com
https://charlescurley.com/blog/
Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?
Hi, On Tue, Jan 02, 2024 at 08:17:55PM -0700, Charles Curley wrote: > On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 00:29:42 + > Andy Smith wrote: > > If a SMART long self-test came back clean then it already has been > > re-mapped as a long self-test reads every user-accessible sector. > > I'm not so sure about that. See the journalctl output at the bottom of > this email. I don't see anything but smartd repeatedly warning you about the 1 pending sector. As I said, it's annoying when a drive doesn't decremement its pending sector count after remapping. If you can read the whole drive then it certainly has been remapped (or was a transient error that isn't "pending" any more). None of the logs you presented show any error coming from the drive, but then they won't as you've only selected logs from smartd. smartd will complain about that 1 pending sector count until the end of time unless: - Drive just decides to clear it, or; - You reconfigure smartd All smartd is doing here is reading the attributes of the drive and reporting them to you. It will never show you the actual error that caused those attributes to change. > > Like to live dangerously, huh… > > No. That's what fast networks, good and multiple backup programs, a > good RAID array on another computer, and multiple off-site backups are > for. It's not my view as in my experience storage is one of the most failure-prone parts of a computer, and an outage from non-redundant storage typically annoys me more than making it redundant does. That is in most cases really easy and cheap these days, so I do regard going without it as living dangerously. Not always a good cost-benefit trade off though, I grant you. Thanks, Andy -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?
On 2 Jan 2024 20:17 -0700, from charlescur...@charlescurley.com (Charles
Curley):
> Jan 02 20:07:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently
> unreadable (pending) sectors
This is not the problem. This is smartd reporting something about the
drive's health which you might be interested in. (Also, about what
someone else wrote, it's not really surprising if smartd checks the
drive every 30 minutes. It would have been more curious if there were
kernel I/O errors logged exactly every 30 minutes, but you haven't
shown anything from those logs in this thread AFAICT.)
What I find curious is the combination of Reallocated_Sector_Ct == 1
and Reallocated_Event_Count == 0. There's also the
Current_Pending_Sector == 1 but Offline_Uncorrectable == 0 even after
two SMART health tests, one of which being an extended offline test.
If a sector has been reallocated, that should have happened at some
point, so if Reallocated_Sector_Ct > 0 then Reallocated_Event_Count
_should_ also be greater than 0 (and hopefully not greater than
Reallocated_Sector_Ct), which it isn't reported as in your case.
Likewise, after an extended offline SMART test, each sector should
have a known status of either readable or not readable. If the
firmware detects a sector as being marginal, it _should_ rewrite it
and check again; if it's still marginal, it _should_ reallocate that
sector, which _should_ increment Reallocated_Event_Count. The "pending
sectors" SMART attribute is supposed to count sectors which the drive
has failed to read, so they cannot be reallocated, and which will be
reallocated on the next write (when the drive knows what data to put
in the reallocated-to sector). Since both tests finished without
finding any errors, there _should_ have been no unreadable sectors.
I'm inclined to believe that your drive is fibbing SMART data.
As a background process, try running something like
# ionice find / -xdev -type f -exec cat {} + >/dev/null
and if that doesn't cause any I/O errors to be output or logged, then
the drive is _likely_ fine. (You may need to adjust for other file
systems also on that drive, such as /boot.)
--
Michael Kjörling 🔗 https://michael.kjorling.se
“Remember when, on the Internet, nobody cared that you were a dog?”
Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?
On Tue, 2024-01-02 at 17:47 -0500, Dan Ritter wrote: > > root@tiassa:~# journalctl -u smartmontools.service | grep unreadable > > Jan 02 13:07:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently > > unreadable (pending) sectors > > Jan 02 13:37:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently > > unreadable (pending) sectors > > Jan 02 14:07:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently > > unreadable (pending) sectors > > Jan 02 14:37:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently > > unreadable (pending) sectors > > Jan 02 15:07:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently > > unreadable (pending) sectors > > These are logged at suspiciously even times, like something is > looking at the disk every 30 minutes exactly. Perhaps 'smartd' the "SMART Disk Monitoring Daemon" ;-) -- Tixy
Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?
On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 00:29:42 + Andy Smith wrote: > Hello, > > On Tue, Jan 02, 2024 at 04:42:37PM -0700, Charles Curley wrote: > [...] > > If a SMART long self-test came back clean then it already has been > re-mapped as a long self-test reads every user-accessible sector. I'm not so sure about that. See the journalctl output at the bottom of this email. > > If you really want to reassure yourself, look back in your logs for > the actual sector number and then read it with hdparm. Either it > prints the raw data or it gives an error. > > # hdparm --read-sector [sector number] /dev/sda > > (generally safe as it's only a read) I'll try that later. I don't want to take the time now to isolate the relevant log entries. > > It is annoying when a remapped bad sector doesn't seem to increment > the "remapped" count and decrement the "pending" count, but I've had > it happen. I wouldn't particularly worry about it unless the number > keeps going up OR the actual sector is still unreadable (though the > self-test should have spotted that). > > You can reconfigure smartd so that it only warns you about error > values that increase, not just the presence of the non-zero value > every 30 minutes. That's discussed in the comments of > /etc/smartd.conf and its man page. Good thoughts, thank you. > > > It's the only one on the computer. > > Like to live dangerously, huh… No. That's what fast networks, good and multiple backup programs, a good RAID array on another computer, and multiple off-site backups are for. > > Thanks, > Andy > root@tiassa:~# journalctl -b -u smartmontools.service Jan 02 12:37:39 tiassa systemd[1]: Starting smartmontools.service - Self Monitoring and Reporting Technology (SMART) Daemon... Jan 02 12:37:39 tiassa smartd[740]: smartd 7.3 2022-02-28 r5338 [x86_64-linux-6.1.0-17-amd64] (local build) Jan 02 12:37:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Copyright (C) 2002-22, Bruce Allen, Christian Franke, www.smartmontools.org Jan 02 12:37:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Opened configuration file /etc/smartd.conf Jan 02 12:37:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Drive: DEVICESCAN, implied '-a' Directive on line 21 of file /etc/smartd.conf Jan 02 12:37:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Configuration file /etc/smartd.conf was parsed, found DEVICESCAN, scanning devices Jan 02 12:37:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda, type changed from 'scsi' to 'sat' Jan 02 12:37:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], opened Jan 02 12:37:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], NS256GSSD330, S/N:W3ZK047027T, FW:V0823A0, 256 GB Jan 02 12:37:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], not found in smartd database 7.3/5533. Jan 02 12:37:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], is SMART capable. Adding to "monitor" list. Jan 02 12:37:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], state read from /var/lib/smartmontools/smartd.NS256GSSD330-W3ZK047027T.ata.state Jan 02 12:37:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Monitoring 1 ATA/SATA, 0 SCSI/SAS and 0 NVMe devices Jan 02 12:37:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], state written to /var/lib/smartmontools/smartd.NS256GSSD330-W3ZK047027T.ata.state Jan 02 12:37:39 tiassa systemd[1]: Started smartmontools.service - Self Monitoring and Reporting Technology (SMART) Daemon. Jan 02 13:07:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors Jan 02 13:07:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Sending warning via /usr/share/smartmontools/smartd-runner to root ... Jan 02 13:07:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Warning via /usr/share/smartmontools/smartd-runner to root: successful Jan 02 13:37:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors Jan 02 14:07:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors Jan 02 14:37:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors Jan 02 14:37:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], self-test in progress, 20% remaining Jan 02 15:07:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors Jan 02 15:07:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], previous self-test completed without error Jan 02 15:37:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors Jan 02 16:07:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors Jan 02 16:37:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors Jan 02 17:07:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors Jan 02 17:37:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors Jan 02 18:07:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors Jan 02 18:37:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors Jan 02 19:07:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently unreadable (pending
Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?
Charles Curley wrote: > On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 17:47:18 -0500 > Dan Ritter wrote: > > root@tiassa:~# smartctl -a /dev/sda > smartctl 7.3 2022-02-28 r5338 [x86_64-linux-6.1.0-17-amd64] (local build) > Vendor Specific SMART Attributes with Thresholds: > ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE UPDATED > WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE > 1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 0x0032 100 100 050Old_age Always > - 0 > 5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct 0x0032 100 100 050Old_age Always > - 1 > 9 Power_On_Hours 0x0032 100 100 050Old_age Always > - 764 > 12 Power_Cycle_Count 0x0032 100 100 050Old_age Always > - 25 > 178 Used_Rsvd_Blk_Cnt_Chip 0x0032 100 100 050Old_age Always > - 1 > 194 Temperature_Celsius 0x0022 100 100 050Old_age Always > - 45 > 195 Hardware_ECC_Recovered 0x0032 100 100 050Old_age Always > - 0 > 196 Reallocated_Event_Count 0x0032 100 100 050Old_age Always > - 0 > 197 Current_Pending_Sector 0x0032 100 100 050Old_age Always > - 1 > 198 Offline_Uncorrectable 0x0032 100 100 050Old_age Always > - 0 > 199 UDMA_CRC_Error_Count0x0032 100 100 050Old_age Always > - 0 > 232 Available_Reservd_Space 0x0032 100 100 050Old_age Always > - 96 > 241 Total_LBAs_Written 0x0030 100 100 050Old_age Offline > - 13943 > 242 Total_LBAs_Read 0x0030 100 100 050Old_age Offline > - 5610 These are the values that can indicate health problems with the disk. None of them look bad except the temperature - which is only bad because of the specs on the disk - and > 197 Current_Pending_Sector 0x0032 100 100 050Old_age Always > - 1 which confirms that something is stuck, but it's just one sector. I would not worry about this unless some new symptom emerges. Make backups, but only because you should pretty much always have backups. -dsr-
Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?
Hello, On Tue, Jan 02, 2024 at 04:42:37PM -0700, Charles Curley wrote: > If I understand that entry in the SMART report, the offending > sector should eventually be re-mapped or else marked as > unrecoverable. If the latter, I'll get really concerned. If a SMART long self-test came back clean then it already has been re-mapped as a long self-test reads every user-accessible sector. If you really want to reassure yourself, look back in your logs for the actual sector number and then read it with hdparm. Either it prints the raw data or it gives an error. # hdparm --read-sector [sector number] /dev/sda (generally safe as it's only a read) It is annoying when a remapped bad sector doesn't seem to increment the "remapped" count and decrement the "pending" count, but I've had it happen. I wouldn't particularly worry about it unless the number keeps going up OR the actual sector is still unreadable (though the self-test should have spotted that). You can reconfigure smartd so that it only warns you about error values that increase, not just the presence of the non-zero value every 30 minutes. That's discussed in the comments of /etc/smartd.conf and its man page. > It's the only one on the computer. Like to live dangerously, huh… Thanks, Andy -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?
On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 18:01:32 -0500 Dan Purgert wrote: > On Jan 02, 2024, Charles Curley wrote: > > I have a brand new NVME device, details below, in a brand new > > computer. smartd just started returning pending sector errors. > > Means you've got "N" bad sector(s) on the drive. It happens, even on > new drives. Good to know. > > > > > A recent extended (long) test run since the first reported pending > > sector returned no errors. > > > > How worried should I be? > > I wouldn't be "very" worried; but I'd keep an eye on it (especially > with regards to any warranties you may have on the machine) OK, will do. If I understand that entry in the SMART report, the offending sector should eventually be re-mapped or else marked as unrecoverable. If the latter, I'll get really concerned. > > > Device Model: NS256GSSD330 > > Serial Number:W3ZK047027T > > You kinda removed the important bits out of this report with regards > to the drive health. Sorry. See my recent reply to Dan Ritter . > That being said, this drive is not an NVMe -- > did you check the right one? It's the only one on the computer. Dan Ritter corrected that. https://smarthdd.com/database/Netac-SSD-256GB/S0626A0/ -- Does anybody read signatures any more? https://charlescurley.com https://charlescurley.com/blog/
Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?
On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 17:47:18 -0500 Dan Ritter wrote: > Charles Curley wrote: > > I have a brand new NVME device, details below, in a brand new > > computer. > > You might, but that's not what the details you show us are > saying. > > [...] > > That says this is a SATA device, not an NVMe device. > > Looking up the device model shows me this: > https://smarthdd.com/database/Netac-SSD-256GB/S0626A0/ > > which confirms: SATA in an M.2 form factor, not NVMe. Thank you for that correction. > > [...] > > These are logged at suspiciously even times, like something is > looking at the disk every 30 minutes exactly. If I correctly read the journal entries I appended to my previous email, that would be smartd. > > Note that "currently unreadable" sometimes means "the disk is > too busy to get back to us" and sometimes means "there's damage > on the disk". The disk's onboard controller should map around > damage automatically. > > Do you have any other symptoms? Anything interesting in the > SMART variables? Nothing that jumps out at me. Report appended as a text file. -- Does anybody read signatures any more? https://charlescurley.com https://charlescurley.com/blog/ root@tiassa:~# smartctl -a /dev/sda smartctl 7.3 2022-02-28 r5338 [x86_64-linux-6.1.0-17-amd64] (local build) Copyright (C) 2002-22, Bruce Allen, Christian Franke, www.smartmontools.org === START OF INFORMATION SECTION === Device Model: NS256GSSD330 Serial Number:W3ZK047027T Firmware Version: V0823A0 User Capacity:256,060,514,304 bytes [256 GB] Sector Size: 512 bytes logical/physical Rotation Rate:Solid State Device Form Factor: mSATA TRIM Command: Available Device is:Not in smartctl database 7.3/5533 ATA Version is: ACS-2 T13/2015-D revision 3 SATA Version is: SATA 3.2, 6.0 Gb/s (current: 6.0 Gb/s) Local Time is:Tue Jan 2 15:27:45 2024 MST SMART support is: Available - device has SMART capability. SMART support is: Enabled === START OF READ SMART DATA SECTION === SMART overall-health self-assessment test result: PASSED General SMART Values: Offline data collection status: (0x02) Offline data collection activity was completed without error. Auto Offline Data Collection: Disabled. Self-test execution status: ( 0) The previous self-test routine completed without error or no self-test has ever been run. Total time to complete Offline data collection:( 120) seconds. Offline data collection capabilities:(0x11) SMART execute Offline immediate. No Auto Offline data collection support. Suspend Offline collection upon new command. No Offline surface scan supported. Self-test supported. No Conveyance Self-test supported. No Selective Self-test supported. SMART capabilities:(0x0002) Does not save SMART data before entering power-saving mode. Supports SMART auto save timer. Error logging capability:(0x01) Error logging supported. General Purpose Logging supported. Short self-test routine recommended polling time:( 2) minutes. Extended self-test routine recommended polling time:( 10) minutes. SCT capabilities: (0x0001) SCT Status supported. SMART Attributes Data Structure revision number: 1 Vendor Specific SMART Attributes with Thresholds: ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE UPDATED WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE 1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 0x0032 100 100 050Old_age Always - 0 5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct 0x0032 100 100 050Old_age Always - 1 9 Power_On_Hours 0x0032 100 100 050Old_age Always - 764 12 Power_Cycle_Count 0x0032 100 100 050Old_age Always - 25 160 Unknown_Attribute 0x0032 100 100 050Old_age Always - 0 161 Unknown_Attribute 0x0033 100 100 050Pre-fail Always - 96 163 Unknown_Attribute 0x0032 100 100 050Old_age Always - 5 164 Unknown_Attribute 0x0032 100 100 050Old_age Always - 2126 165 Unknown_Attribute 0x0032 100 100 050Old_age Always - 14 166 Unknown_Attribute 0x0032 100 100 050Old_age Always - 1 167 Unknown_Attribute 0x0032 100 100 050Old_age Always - 5 168 Unknown_Attribute
Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?
Charles Curley wrote: > I have a brand new NVME device, details below, in a brand new computer. You might, but that's not what the details you show us are saying. > smartd just started returning pending sector errors. > > A recent extended (long) test run since the first reported pending > sector returned no errors. > > How worried should I be? > > > Device Model: NS256GSSD330 > Serial Number:W3ZK047027T > Firmware Version: V0823A0 > User Capacity:256,060,514,304 bytes [256 GB] > Sector Size: 512 bytes logical/physical > Rotation Rate:Solid State Device > Form Factor: mSATA That says this is a SATA device, not an NVMe device. Looking up the device model shows me this: https://smarthdd.com/database/Netac-SSD-256GB/S0626A0/ which confirms: SATA in an M.2 form factor, not NVMe. > ATA Version is: ACS-2 T13/2015-D revision 3 > SATA Version is: SATA 3.2, 6.0 Gb/s (current: 6.0 Gb/s) > Local Time is:Tue Jan 2 15:27:45 2024 MST > SMART support is: Available - device has SMART capability. > SMART support is: Enabled > > === START OF READ SMART DATA SECTION === > SMART overall-health self-assessment test result: PASSED > > … > > SMART Self-test log structure revision number 1 > Num Test_DescriptionStatus Remaining LifeTime(hours) > LBA_of_first_error > # 1 Extended offlineCompleted without error 00% 764 - > # 2 Short offline Completed without error 00% 116 - > > > root@tiassa:~# journalctl -u smartmontools.service | grep unreadable > Jan 02 13:07:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently > unreadable (pending) sectors > Jan 02 13:37:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently > unreadable (pending) sectors > Jan 02 14:07:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently > unreadable (pending) sectors > Jan 02 14:37:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently > unreadable (pending) sectors > Jan 02 15:07:39 tiassa smartd[740]: Device: /dev/sda [SAT], 1 Currently > unreadable (pending) sectors These are logged at suspiciously even times, like something is looking at the disk every 30 minutes exactly. Note that "currently unreadable" sometimes means "the disk is too busy to get back to us" and sometimes means "there's damage on the disk". The disk's onboard controller should map around damage automatically. Do you have any other symptoms? Anything interesting in the SMART variables? -dsr-
Re: 1 Currently unreadable (pending) sectors How worried should I be?
On Jan 02, 2024, Charles Curley wrote: > I have a brand new NVME device, details below, in a brand new computer. > smartd just started returning pending sector errors. Means you've got "N" bad sector(s) on the drive. It happens, even on new drives. > > A recent extended (long) test run since the first reported pending > sector returned no errors. > > How worried should I be? I wouldn't be "very" worried; but I'd keep an eye on it (especially with regards to any warranties you may have on the machine) > Device Model: NS256GSSD330 > Serial Number:W3ZK047027T > Firmware Version: V0823A0 > User Capacity:256,060,514,304 bytes [256 GB] > Sector Size: 512 bytes logical/physical > Rotation Rate:Solid State Device > Form Factor: mSATA > TRIM Command: Available > Device is:Not in smartctl database 7.3/5533 > ATA Version is: ACS-2 T13/2015-D revision 3 > SATA Version is: SATA 3.2, 6.0 Gb/s (current: 6.0 Gb/s) > Local Time is:Tue Jan 2 15:27:45 2024 MST > SMART support is: Available - device has SMART capability. > SMART support is: Enabled > > === START OF READ SMART DATA SECTION === > SMART overall-health self-assessment test result: PASSED > > … > > SMART Self-test log structure revision number 1 > Num Test_DescriptionStatus Remaining LifeTime(hours) > LBA_of_first_error > # 1 Extended offlineCompleted without error 00% 764 - > # 2 Short offline Completed without error 00% 116 - You kinda removed the important bits out of this report with regards to the drive health. That being said, this drive is not an NVMe -- did you check the right one? -- |_|O|_| |_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert |O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
