[SOLVED] Need your opinion about the heath of an internal HDD

hifi100 · 01-13-2021, 10:45 AM

Hi,
I have installed Lubuntu 20.04 on a Samsung internal SSD.
I am also using a Seagate spinning HDD for data only.
I had posted the Smart Test results of the HDD on a different forum & I was adviced to not store any important data on the HDD.

I have stored a lot of data on the HDD & haven't faced any data corruption whatsoever. So I am confused.

Can you please tell me your opinion about the health of this HDD ?

Code:

$ sudo smartctl --all /dev/sda
smartctl 7.1 2019-12-30 r5022 [x86_64-linux-5.4.0-58-generic] (local build)
Copyright (C) 2002-19, Bruce Allen, Christian Franke, www.smartmontools.org

=== START OF INFORMATION SECTION ===
Model Family:     Seagate Barracuda 7200.10
Device Model:     ST3160215AS
Serial Number:    6RAAA8P8
Firmware Version: 4.AAB
User Capacity:    160,041,885,696 bytes [160 GB]
Sector Size:      512 bytes logical/physical
Device is:        In smartctl database [for details use: -P show]
ATA Version is:   ATA/ATAPI-7 (minor revision not indicated)
Local Time is:    Sun Dec 27 17:58:29 2020 IST
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:  (0x82) Offline data collection activity
                                        was completed without error.
                                        Auto Offline Data Collection: Enabled.
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:                (  430) seconds.
Offline data collection
capabilities:                    (0x5b) SMART execute Offline immediate.
                                        Auto Offline data collection on/off support.
                                        Suspend Offline collection upon new
                                        command.
                                        Offline surface scan supported.
                                        Self-test supported.
                                        No Conveyance Self-test supported.
                                        Selective Self-test supported.
SMART capabilities:            (0x0003) Saves 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:        (   1) minutes.
Extended self-test routine
recommended polling time:        (  54) minutes.

SMART Attributes Data Structure revision number: 10
Vendor Specific SMART Attributes with Thresholds:
ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME          FLAG     VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE      UPDATED  WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE
  1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate     0x000f   100   253   006    Pre-fail  Always       -       0
  3 Spin_Up_Time            0x0003   097   097   000    Pre-fail  Always       -       0
  4 Start_Stop_Count        0x0032   088   088   020    Old_age   Always       -       12308
  5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct   0x0033   100   100   036    Pre-fail  Always       -       0
  7 Seek_Error_Rate         0x000f   088   060   030    Pre-fail  Always       -       724803665
  9 Power_On_Hours          0x0032   077   077   000    Old_age   Always       -       20161
 10 Spin_Retry_Count        0x0013   100   100   097    Pre-fail  Always       -       0
 12 Power_Cycle_Count       0x0032   088   088   020    Old_age   Always       -       12457
187 Reported_Uncorrect      0x0032   001   001   000    Old_age   Always       -       115
189 High_Fly_Writes         0x003a   090   090   000    Old_age   Always       -       10
190 Airflow_Temperature_Cel 0x0022   063   050   045    Old_age   Always       -       37 (Min/Max 23/38)
194 Temperature_Celsius     0x0022   037   050   000    Old_age   Always       -       37 (0 20 0 0 0)
195 Hardware_ECC_Recovered  0x001a   073   067   000    Old_age   Always       -       9111615
197 Current_Pending_Sector  0x0012   100   100   000    Old_age   Always       -       2
198 Offline_Uncorrectable   0x0010   100   100   000    Old_age   Offline      -       2
199 UDMA_CRC_Error_Count    0x003e   200   200   000    Old_age   Always       -       0
200 Multi_Zone_Error_Rate   0x0000   100   253   000    Old_age   Offline      -       0
202 Data_Address_Mark_Errs  0x0032   100   253   000    Old_age   Always       -       0

SMART Error Log Version: 1
ATA Error Count: 121 (device log contains only the most recent five errors)
        CR = Command Register [HEX]
        FR = Features Register [HEX]
        SC = Sector Count Register [HEX]
        SN = Sector Number Register [HEX]
        CL = Cylinder Low Register [HEX]
        CH = Cylinder High Register [HEX]
        DH = Device/Head Register [HEX]
        DC = Device Command Register [HEX]
        ER = Error register [HEX]
        ST = Status register [HEX]
Powered_Up_Time is measured from power on, and printed as
DDd+hh:mm:SS.sss where DD=days, hh=hours, mm=minutes,
SS=sec, and sss=millisec. It "wraps" after 49.710 days.

Error 121 occurred at disk power-on lifetime: 520 hours (21 days + 16 hours)
  When the command that caused the error occurred, the device was active or idle.

  After command completion occurred, registers were:
  ER ST SC SN CL CH DH
  -- -- -- -- -- -- --
  40 51 00 72 5a 0d e0  Error: UNC at LBA = 0x000d5a72 = 875122

  Commands leading to the command that caused the error were:
  CR FR SC SN CL CH DH DC   Powered_Up_Time  Command/Feature_Name
  -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --  ----------------  --------------------
  25 00 01 72 5a 0d e0 00      00:08:52.207  READ DMA EXT
  35 00 01 71 5a 0d e0 00      00:08:52.207  WRITE DMA EXT
  25 00 01 71 5a 0d e0 00      00:08:55.415  READ DMA EXT
  25 00 01 72 5a 0d e0 00      00:08:55.415  READ DMA EXT
  25 00 01 71 5a 0d e0 00      00:08:55.391  READ DMA EXT

Error 120 occurred at disk power-on lifetime: 520 hours (21 days + 16 hours)
  When the command that caused the error occurred, the device was active or idle.

  After command completion occurred, registers were:
  ER ST SC SN CL CH DH
  -- -- -- -- -- -- --
  40 51 00 72 5a 0d e0  Error: UNC at LBA = 0x000d5a72 = 875122

  Commands leading to the command that caused the error were:
  CR FR SC SN CL CH DH DC   Powered_Up_Time  Command/Feature_Name
  -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --  ----------------  --------------------
  25 00 01 72 5a 0d e0 00      00:08:52.207  READ DMA EXT
  25 00 01 71 5a 0d e0 00      00:08:52.207  READ DMA EXT
  25 00 01 70 5a 0d e0 00      00:08:52.206  READ DMA EXT
  25 00 01 6f 5a 0d e0 00      00:08:52.206  READ DMA EXT
  25 00 01 6e 5a 0d e0 00      00:08:52.206  READ DMA EXT

Error 119 occurred at disk power-on lifetime: 520 hours (21 days + 16 hours)
  When the command that caused the error occurred, the device was active or idle.

  After command completion occurred, registers were:
  ER ST SC SN CL CH DH
  -- -- -- -- -- -- --
  40 51 00 72 5a 0d e0  Error: UNC at LBA = 0x000d5a72 = 875122

  Commands leading to the command that caused the error were:
  CR FR SC SN CL CH DH DC   Powered_Up_Time  Command/Feature_Name
  -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --  ----------------  --------------------
  41 00 01 72 5a 0d e0 00      00:43:33.999  READ VERIFY SECTOR(S) (w/o retry) [OBS-5]
  41 00 01 71 5a 0d e0 00      00:43:33.991  READ VERIFY SECTOR(S) (w/o retry) [OBS-5]
  41 00 01 70 5a 0d e0 00      00:43:33.983  READ VERIFY SECTOR(S) (w/o retry) [OBS-5]
  41 00 01 6f 5a 0d e0 00      00:43:33.983  READ VERIFY SECTOR(S) (w/o retry) [OBS-5]
  41 00 01 6e 5a 0d e0 00      00:43:33.974  READ VERIFY SECTOR(S) (w/o retry) [OBS-5]

Error 118 occurred at disk power-on lifetime: 520 hours (21 days + 16 hours)
  When the command that caused the error occurred, the device was active or idle.

  After command completion occurred, registers were:
  ER ST SC SN CL CH DH
  -- -- -- -- -- -- --
  40 51 00 72 5a 0d e0  Error: UNC at LBA = 0x000d5a72 = 875122

  Commands leading to the command that caused the error were:
  CR FR SC SN CL CH DH DC   Powered_Up_Time  Command/Feature_Name
  -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --  ----------------  --------------------
  42 00 00 00 5a 0d e0 00      00:43:30.570  READ VERIFY SECTOR(S) EXT
  42 00 00 00 59 0d e0 00      00:43:30.595  READ VERIFY SECTOR(S) EXT
  42 00 00 00 58 0d e0 00      00:43:30.592  READ VERIFY SECTOR(S) EXT
  42 00 00 00 57 0d e0 00      00:43:30.591  READ VERIFY SECTOR(S) EXT
  42 00 00 00 56 0d e0 00      00:43:30.589  READ VERIFY SECTOR(S) EXT

Error 117 occurred at disk power-on lifetime: 519 hours (21 days + 15 hours)
  When the command that caused the error occurred, the device was active or idle.

  After command completion occurred, registers were:
  ER ST SC SN CL CH DH
  -- -- -- -- -- -- --
  40 51 00 72 5a 0d e0  Error: UNC at LBA = 0x000d5a72 = 875122

  Commands leading to the command that caused the error were:
  CR FR SC SN CL CH DH DC   Powered_Up_Time  Command/Feature_Name
  -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --  ----------------  --------------------
  25 03 40 70 5a 0d e0 00      00:02:40.034  READ DMA EXT
  25 03 01 00 00 00 e0 00      00:02:40.023  READ DMA EXT
  35 03 08 8f dc 94 e0 00      00:02:40.023  WRITE DMA EXT
  35 03 10 f7 23 91 e0 00      00:02:40.023  WRITE DMA EXT
  25 03 1e 81 71 90 e0 00      00:02:40.023  READ DMA EXT

SMART Self-test log structure revision number 1
Num  Test_Description    Status                  Remaining  LifeTime(hours)  LBA_of_first_error
# 1  Extended offline    Completed without error       00%     13440         -
# 2  Short offline       Completed without error       00%     12632         -
# 3  Short offline       Completed without error       00%     11525         -
# 4  Extended offline    Completed without error       00%     10486         -
# 5  Short offline       Completed without error       00%      3978         -
# 6  Extended offline    Aborted by host               90%      3715         -
# 7  Short offline       Completed without error       00%      3714         -
# 8  Extended offline    Completed: read failure       90%       118         11322720
# 9  Extended offline    Completed: read failure       90%       118         11322720
#10  Short offline       Completed: read failure       90%       118         11322720
3 of 3 failed self-tests are outdated by newer successful extended offline self-test # 1

SMART Selective self-test log data structure revision number 1
 SPAN  MIN_LBA  MAX_LBA  CURRENT_TEST_STATUS
    1        0        0  Not_testing
    2        0        0  Not_testing
    3        0        0  Not_testing
    4        0        0  Not_testing
    5        0        0  Not_testing
Selective self-test flags (0x0):
  After scanning selected spans, do NOT read-scan remainder of disk.
If Selective self-test is pending on power-up, resume after 0 minute delay.

teckk · 01-13-2021, 11:21 AM

Quote:

User Capacity: 160,041,885,696 bytes [160 GB]

That drive is getting a little age on it. I bet it is 12 or so years old.

I would replace it before it dies. If you wait until it has problems then it my be too late. All hard drives are subject to failure. 12 year old ones have done their duty.

DavidMcCann · 01-13-2021, 11:27 AM

I'm no expert, but this looks safe. The failed tests were said to be outdated by a newer test. The logged errors are all about software misbehaving — see error codes. The over-all test is stated as passed and no bad sectors are reported. All the same, you do need to keep an eye on older drives. My laptop has a 17-year-old drive and SMART is happy with it, but that's IBM for you!

beachboy2 · 01-13-2021, 11:29 AM

hifi100,

If the Raw Value for either #5 or #197 read anything other than zero, it is time to change the drive.

Follow teckk's advice above.

heathcliff36 · 01-13-2021, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hifi100

Can you please tell me your opinion about the health of this HDD ?

I've seen a manual for your model HDD dated 2007.
Your HDD must be over 10 years old.
Because the HDD has moving parts it will eventually break down.
People will give horror stories of their HDD failing well before 10 years.
But if your HDD has loyally given you over 10 years of performance - then you've got your moneys worth.

7200 rpm is a fast spin-rate as average HDDs spin at 5400 rpm.
So yours has been working harder resulting in possible faster wear.

Before the HDD eventually keels over it will make scratchy sounds - you can hear the device having difficulty spinning.
But you'll probably want to transfer data before that happens.
You don't want to transfer 160GB of data while you can hear the HDD slowly breaking down.
Of course the breakdown may even be sudden.

What do you mean by storing data only?
If you store data and don't modify it much (write-erase cycles) - then an SSD is best for that.
But if you store data and modify it a lot - then a HDD is best.
But yes it is advisable to replace your old HDD soon - even if you choose not to use it often to increase its longevity.
The SSD is much better if you use this technique because it has no moving parts.

After getting a new HDD I continued using my old HDD.
I installed 4 Linux distros onto it.
No data was stored on the old HDD - it would be saved on the new HDD,
I continued using the distros on the old HDD until it eventually failed.

TB0ne · 01-13-2021, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by heathcliff36

I've seen a manual for your model HDD dated 2007.
Your HDD must be over 10 years old.

Because the HDD has moving parts it will eventually break down. People will give horror stories of their HDD failing well before 10 years. But if your HDD has loyally given you over 10 years of performance - then you've got your moneys worth.

Right, that's what others have noted as well.

Quote:

7200 rpm is a fast spin-rate as average HDDs spin at 5400 rpm. So yours has been working harder resulting in possible faster wear.

You do realize that 7,200 RPM drives have been around a long time, right?? And that 5,400 RPM drives are much older...so the drive spinning at 7,200 RPM isn't 'working harder' at all, just working as it's was DESIGNED to work. And there are even 10,000 RPM drives out there...they don't 'work harder' either.

Quote:

Before the HDD eventually keels over it will make scratchy sounds - you can hear the device having difficulty spinning. But you'll probably want to transfer data before that happens. You don't want to transfer 160GB of data while you can hear the HDD slowly breaking down. Of course the breakdown may even be sudden.

Incorrect; it MAY make a sound...and it may just not power up one day at all. And there is more than one way for a drive to fail, and it'll spin up just fine...and not work at all.

Quote:

What do you mean by storing data only?
If you store data and don't modify it much (write-erase cycles) - then an SSD is best for that.
But if you store data and modify it a lot - then a HDD is best.

Incorrect on several levels; SSD's aren't any less reliable (and MORE so, in most cases), than standard spinning drives. Since SSD's aren't like flash memory, they level and perform error correction very well. I have several servers running SSD's as their main OS drives, and they've been working for years, 24/7, and still don't have any errors.

Quote:

But yes it is advisable to replace your old HDD soon - even if you choose not to use it often to increase its longevity. The SSD is much better if you use this technique because it has no moving parts.

After getting a new HDD I continued using my old HDD. I installed 4 Linux distros onto it. No data was stored on the old HDD - it would be saved on the new HDD, I continued using the distros on the old HDD until it eventually failed.

ALL drives fail, either HDD, SSD, or any other media you care to name.

heathcliff36 · 01-13-2021, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TB0ne

Right, that's what others have noted as well.

My observation comes with a verified link to a reputable website.
I don't just have an opinion - it is supported with fact.

Quote:

You do realize that 7,200 RPM drives have been around a long time, right?? And that 5,400 RPM drives are much older...so the drive spinning at 7,200 RPM isn't 'working harder' at all, just working as it's was DESIGNED to work. And there are even 10,000 RPM drives out there...they don't 'work harder' either.

The motor of a platter turning at 7200rpm is running faster than a motor at 5400rpm.
A faster motor is wearing away more than a slower motor.

Quote:

Incorrect; it MAY make a sound...and it may just not power up one day at all. And there is more than one way for a drive to fail, and it'll spin up just fine...and not work at all.

The HDD does make a sound. If you read my post you'll see it's based on personal experience.
What are you basing your opinion on?

Quote:

Incorrect on several levels; SSD's aren't any less reliable (and MORE so, in most cases), than standard spinning drives. Since SSD's aren't like flash memory, they level and perform error correction very well. I have several servers running SSD's as their main OS drives, and they've been working for years, 24/7, and still don't have any errors.

SSDs are the new technology and they have been around recently.
But a modern efficient desktop rig uses SSD and HDD together.
This is because the larger capacity and affordability of HDD still makes it useful in the real world.

Quote:

ALL drives fail, either HDD, SSD, or any other media you care to name.

You understand simple physics. That is a good thing.

TB0ne · 01-13-2021, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by heathcliff36

My observation comes with a verified link to a reputable website. I don't just have an opinion - it is supported with fact.

Right; again, saying the drive is old isn't saying anything new, nor is saying that ANY machine (no matter what it is), will break down.

Quote:

The motor of a platter turning at 7200rpm is running faster than a motor at 5400rpm. A faster motor is wearing away more than a slower motor.

Wrong; you apparently don't understand basic engineering. The motor was DESIGNED to run faster...that means, it's doing exactly what it's designed to do, period. Loads of low RPM motors used in servos/printers/other machines that may turn 100RPM, and wear out after six months. And anything that has higher load is made from different/better materials, so they have no problem handling the increased load.

And in case your 'reputable websites' haven't mentioned it, the warranties are just as long (or longer) on the higher RPM drives...how, exactly, would the manufacturers do that, if they wore out more frequently?? Try looking at Seagate's own website for comparison and MTBF/AFR numbers. And amazingly enough, the 10,000 RPM drives are warrantied the same as 7,200 RPM drives.

Quote:

The HDD does make a sound. If you read my post you'll see it's based on personal experience. What are you basing your opinion on?

Over 36 years personal and professional experience, on thousands of servers/machines, using everything from MFM, SMD, IDE, SCSI, and all the form factors from 8" to 2.5", in things from mainframes to laptops; how about you??

Again, if you re-read my post, you'll see that I said that it *MAY* make a sound before failure...and it also MAY NOT make a sound, and be perfectly normal, right up until failure time. And there are many drives that spin just fine, but the heads don't unlock/move and the drive is just as dead....and sounds perfectly normal. Understand??

Quote:

SSDs are the new technology and they have been around recently.

Wrong; been around since 1978, and there's a vast difference between being around for PERSONAL use versus INDUSTRIAL use. Just like there's a lot of differences in SSD types; feel free to look them up on your 'reputable websites', along with why flash memory is junk by comparison.

Quote:

But a modern efficient desktop rig uses SSD and HDD together. This is because the larger capacity and affordability of HDD still makes it useful in the real world.

Again, misleading. SOME systems use both; some don't, and the price differences are fading quickly. Useful? Sure...just like tape is still useful. I don't have ANYTHING but SSD's, and haven't for years.

Quote:

You understand simple physics. That is a good thing.

Yes, and better than you obviously.

jefro · 01-13-2021, 07:37 PM

I think we are getting off track.

As noted before, any media can and will fail. One solution is to have a backup plan usually.

So we are back to this drive could fail, when we can't say but at some point it will fail.

I used to maintain and program a magnetic core computer. Was supposed to be nuclear bomb resistant as long as the core was fastened tight. I never tested that.

hifi100 · 01-14-2021, 06:04 AM

So this drive is okay for now but since it's so old it can fail at any moment. The data that is on this drive is already backed up. I will just keep using this drive as long as it lasts coz IMHO it doesn't make sense to throw away the drive just because its old.

Again, all of the data is already backed up.

Thanks for the replies.

jsbjsb001 · 01-14-2021, 06:59 AM

You may find this link helpful. That said, I do agree with what TB0ne has said above. At the end of the day, the more you use it, the sooner it will die. If the Reallocated_Sector_Ct attribute's RAW_VALUE starts rising rapidly in a short space of time, the drive is very likely failing at that point. Always backup whatever is important to you, always.

The last "spinning platter" drive I had that failed made a clicking sound (which was not normal) at the exact time it failing completely. First, all the files on it suddenly disappeared, then the clicking sound, then libata reported that it failed to communicate with the drive, then it's device node disappeared. That all happened in maybe 10 to 15 minutes, if even that... glad I'd backed it up beforehand.

heathcliff36 · 01-14-2021, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TB0ne

Right; again, saying the drive is old isn't saying anything new, nor is saying that ANY machine (no matter what it is), will break down.

OP is asking about the 'health of this HDD'. OP knows exactly how old it is.

The advice given is that yes, the HDD should be backed up and replaced soon.
The health of the HHD is worn despite running fine.

You however have given no advice to OP on this thread.
Have you noticed that?

Quote:

Wrong; you apparently don't understand basic engineering. The motor was DESIGNED to run faster...that means, it's doing exactly what it's designed to do, period.

It is impossible to say with certainty if a 10-year-old 7200rpm HDD will fail before a 10-year-old 5400rpm HDD.
But given the 'law of probabilities' it is prudent to say the HDD which has done the more work will fail sooner.
This is because 'work' contributes to depreciation.

The fact that the 7200rpm HDD is designed differently is irrelevant.
This is because 'design' does not contribute to depreciation.

Quote:

Loads of low RPM motors used in servos/printers/other machines that may turn 100RPM, and wear out after six months.

The thread is about HDDs.
Their reliability is critical for worldwide computing.
They cannot be compared with other items unrelated to computing and the storage of data.

Quote:

And anything that has higher load is made from different/better materials, so they have no problem handling the increased load.

That is your simplistic assumption.
Unfortunately the world and economics doesn't work like that.
It's much more complicated.

Quote:

And in case your 'reputable websites' haven't mentioned it, the warranties are just as long (or longer) on the higher RPM drives

What is the warranty on OP's HDD?
You don't know?
Then your opinion is irrelevant.

Quote:

Over 36 years personal and professional experience, on thousands of servers/machines, using everything from MFM, SMD, IDE, SCSI, and all the form factors from 8" to 2.5", in things from mainframes to laptops; how about you??

Who needs intelligence - when you have experience?

Quote:

Again, if you re-read my post, you'll see that I said that it *MAY* make a sound before failure...and it also MAY NOT make a sound, and be perfectly normal, right up until failure time. And there are many drives that spin just fine, but the heads don't unlock/move and the drive is just as dead....and sounds perfectly normal. Understand??

This is not about me.
Send a post to OP.
Hopefully one that is relevant and helpful, and not deranged.

Quote:

Yes, and better than you obviously.

I do not doubt that for a second. Obviously.

TB0ne · 01-14-2021, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by heathcliff36

OP is asking about the 'health of this HDD'. OP knows exactly how old it is. The advice given is that yes, the HDD should be backed up and replaced soon. The health of the HHD is worn despite running fine.

Right; again this was all said to the OP before you posted.

Quote:

You however have given no advice to OP on this thread. Have you noticed that?

And have you noticed what you've given is either misleading or wrong?

Quote:

It is impossible to say with certainty if a 10-year-old 7200rpm HDD will fail before a 10-year-old 5400rpm HDD. But given the 'law of probabilities' it is prudent to say the HDD which has done the more work will fail sooner. This is because 'work' contributes to depreciation.

Correct, and this is well known; drives can fail two months after buying them, or last 15 years...no way to know. But saying a faster RPM drive will fail sooner than a slower one is NOT right.

Quote:

The fact that the 7200rpm HDD is designed differently is irrelevant. This is because 'design' does not contribute to depreciation.

Then why did you state that a faster motor will wear out quicker? Again, the motor was designed to run at that speed; when that's done, the materials used are designed to run just fine at that load.

Quote:

The thread is about HDDs. Their reliability is critical for worldwide computing. They cannot be compared with other items unrelated to computing and the storage of data.

Since you're missing the point, I was referring to motor design, which you seem to be hung up on. Again, motor speed has zero to do with motor LIFE.

Quote:

That is your simplistic assumption. Unfortunately the world and economics doesn't work like that. It's much more complicated.

Not only wrong, but VERY wrong. If a company makes a product out of junk materials and warranties it for longer than the expected life (due to being designed poorly), what do you think will happen?? People RETURN them for refunds/replacements...and your 'simplistic assumption' is that somehow they make money by selling 2 (or more) drives for the price of one, after the failed one is returned?? No, sorry...doesn't happen.

Quote:

What is the warranty on OP's HDD? You don't know? Then your opinion is irrelevant.

5 years...which you can find on the 'reputable website' (that would be Seagate's). Did you look??

Quote:

Who needs intelligence - when you have experience?

You asked about my experience and I told you; and I asked about YOURS...what do you base YOUR opinion on, besides 'reputable websites'??

Quote:

This is not about me. Send a post to OP. Hopefully one that is relevant and helpful, and not deranged.

Read the LQ Rules about personal attacks; this is the second comment that falls into that realm. I said plainly:
"Again, if you re-read my post, you'll see that I said that it *MAY* make a sound before failure...and it also MAY NOT make a sound, and be perfectly normal, right up until failure time. And there are many drives that spin just fine, but the heads don't unlock/move and the drive is just as dead....and sounds perfectly normal. Understand??"

Point out what's not relevant to hard drive health, and how your assertion that hard drives *ALWAYS* make a sound before failure, please. This is about not misleading the OP into thinking that SSD's are somehow not reliable, that HDD's 'always' make noises before failure, or saying definitively that one system configuration is better (when you don't know what the goal is). The OP has a clear picture of what was needed...posting things that confuse the issue isn't good.

As asked by jefro, keep this thread on topic.

computersavvy · 01-14-2021, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hifi100

So this drive is okay for now but since it's so old it can fail at any moment. The data that is on this drive is already backed up. I will just keep using this drive as long as it lasts coz IMHO it doesn't make sense to throw away the drive just because its old.

Again, all of the data is already backed up.

Thanks for the replies.

Backups are great.
I would use it as long as it lasts, keeping backups current, but also being prepared for failure at a moments notice.

When you replace it is a personal choice, but just be prepared.
I guess the real question is this. Do you wait to buy the replacement until it totally fails and you are out until the replacement arrives, or do you buy it now, just in case? If you buy it now then why wait to replace it?

I personally don't see anything urgent about pending failure. The last error logged was a seek error at 520 hours and you currently have 20161 hours running. Nothing current to worry about.

TB0ne · 01-14-2021, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by computersavvy

Backups are great.
I would use it as long as it lasts, keeping backups current, but also being prepared for failure at a moments notice.

When you replace it is a personal choice, but just be prepared.
I guess the real question is this. Do you wait to buy the replacement until it totally fails and you are out until the replacement arrives, or do you buy it now, just in case? If you buy it now then why wait to replace it?

I personally don't see anything urgent about pending failure. The last error logged was a seek error at 520 hours and you currently have 20161 hours running. Nothing current to worry about.

Agreed totally. I tend to replace my drives every few years, regardless of errors, unless they're in a hardware RAID situation. Given the prices of drives, grabbing a new one (usually bigger, cheaper, and faster), isn't a bad thing. But even though I have good backups, I still don't like that dark-O-thirty phone call about things dying, or having a problem I could avoid.