From: nospam@needed.invalid   
      
   On Sun, 5/18/2025 9:16 AM, Paul wrote:   
   > On Sat, 5/17/2025 11:02 PM, Jimmy Anderson wrote:   
   >>  To: CtrlAltDel   
   >> -=> CtrlAltDel wrote to alt.os.linux <=-   
   >>   
   >> Ct> From Newsgroup: alt.os.linux   
   >>   
   >> Ct> Thanks for the responses, everyone, both genuine and sarcastic. I'm   
   >> Ct> beginning to get the idea that what I wish to do can't be done,   
   >> Ct> although I'm still not sure why.   
   >>   
   >> Ct> The thing is, I hate to waste anything. Just think of all the metal and   
   >> Ct> parts and cards and plastic, etc... that will be useless and can't be   
   >> Ct> recycled or anything if I can no longer use the 3 HDD drives I   
   >> Ct> currently have.   
   >>   
   >> Why not find someone that WILL use the HDD's? That way they aren't   
   >> 'junked'?   
   >>   
   >   
   > The S.M.A.R.T table can tell you what shape the drives are in.   
   >   
   > As can a read benchmark.   
   >   
   > "gnome-disks" has a benchmark window for the entire disk drive,   
   > from the upper right three-ball menu. You're looking for "downward spikes"   
   > indicating excess re-allocations, as an indication   
   > of whether the drive is still suited to main usage.   
   >   
   > I usually deassert the tick box for write benchmark, and only do reads.   
   > It is hard for me to say whether the benchmarks are accurate. The main   
   > purpose of running a bench, is to check for "smoothness". There have   
   > been problems in the past, with more than one benchmark not being   
   > able to measure speed properly. Some need a bug fix for this.   
   >   
   >    [Picture]   
   >   
   >     https://i.postimg.cc/BQ5GLTsW/disk-drive-testing.gif   
   >   
   > I sort the drives into three piles.   
   >   
   > 1) Unconditional use. Transfer curve is relatively smooth.   
   > 2) Not for regular use. Like the drive in the picture, some   
   >    signs of wear are present.   
   > 3) The third level, is the "close to failure level". The   
   >    downward spikes are 50GB wide, and the slowness of the drive is   
   >    apparent. The "Reallocated" raw data box, is not zero and   
   >    might read 200 or 300. This is a drive with limited   
   >    remaining spare sectors. It still works as well as (2),   
   >    but is just less trustworthy. There could be room for the   
   >    reallocated to show up to 5500, but the application may   
   >    not tolerate the condition of the drive all the way to max.   
   >    It might take "ddrescue" from package "gddrescue", to copy the disk.   
      
   Here is the same entire disk, scanned from end to end.   
   It does not look so bad after all. Perhaps a little   
   spot down near the end. I lost two files on that disk   
   due to "CRC errors", which is why I'm not particularly   
   happy with it. Other disks don't do that.   
      
      [Picture]   
      
       https://i.postimg.cc/W3Q4srRW/WDBlue-250-GB-Read-Bench.gif   
      
   The conclusion then, is maybe a thorough scan is the better option.   
      
       Paul   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)