Re: Palimsest discrepancy

2012-05-03 Thread ergodic
Finally back in town again and back to Palimpsest. A little background first. My box is a Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield at 2.4GHz, Asus P5K mobo, 6GB core, XFX GeForce 8600 video card and two hard drive drawers. For OS, Grub1 multi-booting Fedora 15, 16, 17β, Win-XP and Win-7. By January 2011,

Re: Palimsest discrepancy

2012-05-02 Thread Adam Williamson
On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 13:35 -0400, ergodic wrote: > Has anyone experienced Palimpsest discrepancies? > > Palimsest in Fedora 16 reports a disk (MAXTOR STM3320620AS) as > failing: "DISK HAS MANY BAD SECTORS" etc. > SMART: 197 Current pending Sector Count Value -4 sectors. > > Palimsest in Fedora

Re: Palimsest discrepancy

2012-05-01 Thread Dennis Jacobfeuerborn
On 05/01/2012 08:18 PM, Tom Horsley wrote: > On Tue, 01 May 2012 13:03:18 -0500 > John Morris wrote: > >> I depend on SMART being right >> enough so I can usually yank a failing drive before it goes so bad the >> worker can't login and use the machine. > > Of course, it was the SMART firmware on

Re: Palimsest discrepancy

2012-05-01 Thread Tom Horsley
On Tue, 01 May 2012 13:03:18 -0500 John Morris wrote: > I depend on SMART being right > enough so I can usually yank a failing drive before it goes so bad the > worker can't login and use the machine. Of course, it was the SMART firmware on my Crucial SSD drive that made it break after 5184 hours

Re: Palimsest discrepancy

2012-05-01 Thread John Morris
On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 12:04 -0700, John Reiser wrote: > How old is the drive? That model number says 3-platter, 320MB, SATA. > If it's three or more years old, then just replace it. A new drive > is $90 or less in US, and 500GB is available for the same price > and same other specs (size, power,

Re: Palimsest discrepancy

2012-04-30 Thread Timothy Davis
On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 13:35 -0400, ergodic wrote: > Has anyone experienced Palimpsest discrepancies? > > Palimsest in Fedora 16 reports a disk (MAXTOR STM3320620AS) as > failing: "DISK HAS MANY BAD SECTORS" etc. > SMART: 197 Current pending Sector Count Value -4 sectors. > > Palimsest in Fedora

Re: Palimsest discrepancy

2012-04-30 Thread John Reiser
> Palimsest in Fedora 16 reports a disk (MAXTOR STM3320620AS) as failing: > "DISK HAS MANY BAD SECTORS" etc. > SMART: 197 Current pending Sector Count Value -4 sectors. > > Palimsest in Fedora 17 beta reports the same disk (MAXTOR STM3320620AS) as > "OK" > SMART: 197 Current pending Sector Co

Re: Palimsest discrepancy

2012-04-30 Thread Dariusz J. Garbowski
On 30/04/12 11:35 AM, ergodic wrote: Has anyone experienced Palimpsest discrepancies? Palimsest in Fedora 16 reports a disk (MAXTOR STM3320620AS) as failing: "DISK HAS MANY BAD SECTORS" etc. SMART: 197 Current pending Sector Count Value -4 sectors. Palimsest in Fedora 17 beta reports the same

Palimsest discrepancy

2012-04-30 Thread ergodic
Has anyone experienced Palimpsest discrepancies? Palimsest in Fedora 16 reports a disk (MAXTOR STM3320620AS) as failing: "DISK HAS MANY BAD SECTORS" etc. SMART: 197 Current pending Sector Count Value -4 sectors. Palimsest in Fedora 17 beta reports the same disk (MAXTOR STM3320620AS) as "OK"