Dale wrote:
It hasn't mattered in the past. I'm not sure why it should matter
now. I really don't see how it could matter at all really. Heck, my
DVD drive is slow as it gets, its udma4, but hdc is on the same cable
and it is one of the faster drives I have. That would exclude sda of
cou
Robert Bridge wrote:
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Dale wrote:
The powered on hours is most likely about right. I rarely turn my machine
off. That drive is about that old too. I don't always have it mounted but
it is a pain to remove so I just left it in there in case I needed it.
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Dale wrote:
> The powered on hours is most likely about right. I rarely turn my machine
> off. That drive is about that old too. I don't always have it mounted but
> it is a pain to remove so I just left it in there in case I needed it.
Is it a WD Caviar Black b
Alex Schuster wrote:
Dale writes:
For the record, hda and hdb are not even mounted. I am currently using
hdc for the OS. The drive used to be a lot faster than this. I used
it for my OS a good while back and recently used it for /var/portage
and /usr/portage. I'm not sure what has chang
Dale writes:
> For the record, hda and hdb are not even mounted. I am currently using
> hdc for the OS. The drive used to be a lot faster than this. I used
> it for my OS a good while back and recently used it for /var/portage
> and /usr/portage. I'm not sure what has changed so I can't figure
Robert Bridge wrote:
Hi Dale,
> From the above, the reallocated sector count is fine, none of the disk
seem to be having surface problems.
The UDMA errors are MUCH higher for sdb, as is the power-on hours. It
is claiming about 6 years powered on, which is a bit weird alright. If
it is having t
Hi Dale,
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 5:46 AM, Dale wrote:
>
> Here is that info. I included all the IDE drives. Sort of see if there is
> something different about them.
>
> smoker-new ~ # smartctl -A /dev/hda
> 5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct 0x0033 253 253 063 Pre-fail Always
> - 0
>
KH wrote:
Am 03.06.2010 06:46, schrieb Dale:
As for the lifetimes in the report, good question. I think that drives
is doing some weird stuff. It can travel back and forth in time but is
slow for no apparent good reason.
Dale
:-) :-)
Hi Dale,
you just made me smile. Thank's.
k
Am 03.06.2010 06:46, schrieb Dale:
>
> As for the lifetimes in the report, good question. I think that drives
> is doing some weird stuff. It can travel back and forth in time but is
> slow for no apparent good reason.
>
> Dale
>
> :-) :-)
>
Hi Dale,
you just made me smile. Thank's.
kh
Arttu V. wrote:
On 6/2/10, Dale wrote:
smoker-new ~ # smartctl -l selftest /dev/hdb
smartctl version 5.38 [i686-pc-linux-gnu] Copyright (C) 2002-8 Bruce Allen
Home page is http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net/
=== START OF READ SMART DATA SECTION ===
SMART Self-test log structure revision
On 6/2/10, Dale wrote:
> smoker-new ~ # smartctl -l selftest /dev/hdb
> smartctl version 5.38 [i686-pc-linux-gnu] Copyright (C) 2002-8 Bruce Allen
> Home page is http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net/
>
> === START OF READ SMART DATA SECTION ===
> SMART Self-test log structure revision number 1
> N
Arttu V. wrote:
On 6/1/10, Dale wrote:
/dev/hdb:
Commands/features:
Enabled Supported:
*SMART feature set
Maybe the problem is not external (cabling, jumpers etc), but
internal? Anything interesting in smartctl's report?
I did a test a few weeks ago
On 6/1/10, Dale wrote:
> /dev/hdb:
> Commands/features:
> Enabled Supported:
> *SMART feature set
Maybe the problem is not external (cabling, jumpers etc), but
internal? Anything interesting in smartctl's report?
--
Arttu V.
YoYo Siska wrote:
On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 04:26:55AM -0500, Dale wrote:
Paul Hartman wrote:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 12:26 AM, Dale wrote:
I am in the process of moving my OS from drive to drive and thought I would
test to see which drive is the fastest. I got some strange
On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 04:26:55AM -0500, Dale wrote:
> Paul Hartman wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 12:26 AM, Dale wrote:
>>
>>> I am in the process of moving my OS from drive to drive and thought I would
>>> test to see which drive is the fastest. I got some strange results when I
>>> test
Paul Hartman wrote:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 12:26 AM, Dale wrote:
I am in the process of moving my OS from drive to drive and thought I would
test to see which drive is the fastest. I got some strange results when I
tested them One drive is MUCH slower than the others on the buffered disk
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 12:26 AM, Dale wrote:
> I am in the process of moving my OS from drive to drive and thought I would
> test to see which drive is the fastest. I got some strange results when I
> tested them One drive is MUCH slower than the others on the buffered disk
> reads but I can't
Hi folks,
I am in the process of moving my OS from drive to drive and thought I
would test to see which drive is the fastest. I got some strange
results when I tested them One drive is MUCH slower than the others on
the buffered disk reads but I can't see any reason why that would be
so.
18 matches
Mail list logo
