Linux - NewbieThis Linux forum is for members that are new to Linux.
Just starting out and have a question?
If it is not in the man pages or the how-to's this is the place!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
I don't see anything wrong in those attributes. The Load_Cycle_Count and Power-Off_Retract_Count are awfully high, but so far they don't seem to have hurt anything. Having the drive power cycling every 90 seconds or so (851981 times in just 8950 hours) seems like a configuration problem.
Smartctl is usually able to report a lot more if you were to use
Code:
sudo smartctl -a /dev/sdX
Unless you are certain it is failing (i.e. getting a lot of corruption that requires using fsck or similar) I would dig deeper before you just automatically replace it.
With that said, the output of the smartctl command above is a better judge of the status than the little bit you posted here.
Also remember that a backup is always recommended just in case of catastrophic failure.
Last edited by computersavvy; 12-31-2021 at 10:40 PM.
From these I see no reason to expect soon failure, especially with such low power on hours. Don't be afraid to update to SSD anyway. Unless your PC is running the disk on an old SATA-1 controller, upgrading to SSD should be worth it for the speed increase. This HDD looks like a great candidate for backing up your SSD.
Well, I certainly wouldn't be happy with those numbers for 187, 188.
Nothing wrong with those - you should check normalised, not raw values. It is probably a seagate drive - they always have insane raw values. And if it is, it should be replaced even if it looks perfectly healthy as this one does.
Well, I certainly wouldn't be happy with those numbers for 187, 188.
Convert those values to hex and look at the low-order bits. Seagate drives (I'm guessing this is a Seagate hybrid drive) typically have some raw values for which the low-order bits are the actual exception count and the higher-order bits are the number of operations.
Looks ok. But hey ... any excuse to spend $100 on an SSD sounds good to me . My spinning rust storage devices are now only for backups. All our laptops, desktops, and a data server our running on SSDs.
If you think that a drive might be headed for failure, get rid of the damned thing.
SSD hard drives, both internal and external, are insanely-big and no longer expensive. I have several external drives attached to all of my computers, for continuous backups and other purposes.
If you are using LVM = Logical Volume Management, as you should be, you can actually migrate all of the data off the failing drive and onto the new one automagically ... and without downtime.
Last edited by sundialsvcs; 01-03-2022 at 09:35 AM.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.