From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: Problems w/ Sil3124 + Port Multiplier Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 11:08:51 +0200 Message-ID: <4639A6A3.20001@gmail.com> References: <463828F6.7020209@jogback.se> <46388862.1020709@gmail.com> <4638928E.60700@jogback.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.176]:43460 "EHLO py-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030802AbXECJJu (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 May 2007 05:09:50 -0400 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id a29so349317pyi for ; Thu, 03 May 2007 02:09:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4638928E.60700@jogback.se> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Michael_Jogb=E4ck?= Cc: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org Lars Michael Jogb=E4ck wrote: >> I think the disk attached to port 0 might be bad. Please report the >> result of 'smartctl -d ata -a /dev/sdX' where sdX is the device atta= ched >> to the failing port. >> >> =20 > SMART Error Log Version: 1 > No Errors Logged I was hoping to see some error logs but no. Hardware_ECC_Recovered count seems high (385707184) but I dunno whether the value is normal or not. Different manufacturers use different norms in counting them. If you have other disks of the same model, you can compare the values and see whether if it's unusually high. -- tejun