winnielinnie
MVP
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2019
- Messages
- 3,641
A drive in a non-essential pool was notifying me of SMART errors. Possibly because I have weekly tasks of "short" SMART selftests.
I removed this drive, replaced it with a new drive, and all is well. However, I decided to play around with this drive and ran a non-destructive read-write badblocks pass on it, like so:
It passed without a single error. No read errors, no write errors, no corruption errors.
However, upon running an extended (long) SMART selftest, it returns an error with a specific LBA.
How is that possible?
I thought a long SMART selftest simply tries to read every single sector of the drive. If badblocks can read, write, re-write, and confirm on every sector without issue, why would a SMART selftest fail? I even ran badblocks again, out of curiosity, and it passed without errors again.
Is one to be trusted more than the other? After all, I noticed that SMART errors were filling up on the drive, which is what alluded me to replace the drive now rather than wait.
* I ran these commands on a separate Linux box, so the naming convention might differ slightly than on FreeNAS/FreeBSD.
I removed this drive, replaced it with a new drive, and all is well. However, I decided to play around with this drive and ran a non-destructive read-write badblocks pass on it, like so:
Code:
badblocks -nsv -b 512 -c 65535 -o errors.log /dev/sdc
It passed without a single error. No read errors, no write errors, no corruption errors.
However, upon running an extended (long) SMART selftest, it returns an error with a specific LBA.
Code:
smartctl -t long /dev/sdc
How is that possible?
I thought a long SMART selftest simply tries to read every single sector of the drive. If badblocks can read, write, re-write, and confirm on every sector without issue, why would a SMART selftest fail? I even ran badblocks again, out of curiosity, and it passed without errors again.
Is one to be trusted more than the other? After all, I noticed that SMART errors were filling up on the drive, which is what alluded me to replace the drive now rather than wait.
* I ran these commands on a separate Linux box, so the naming convention might differ slightly than on FreeNAS/FreeBSD.
