After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 600219 - Palimpsest displays out-of-range SMART values
Palimpsest displays out-of-range SMART values
Status: RESOLVED NOTGNOME
Product: gnome-disk-utility
Classification: Core
Component: Disks UI
2.28.x
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: gnome-disk-utility-maint
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2009-10-31 12:46 UTC by Gioele Barabucci
Modified: 2009-10-31 15:35 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Description Gioele Barabucci 2009-10-31 12:46:15 UTC 
Palimpsest (2.28.0 on amd64) says that the "Read error rate" of my main disk is OK and has value "230874873" (raw 0xf9dec20d0000). The normalized value is "119", the worst value is "100" and the threshold value is "6".

Obviously there is something strange in these values. Maybe SMART is reporting them in the wrong way, anyway Palimpsest should do some sanity-check before showing them to the user.
Comment 1 Gioele Barabucci 2009-10-31 12:58:44 UTC 
My disk is a Seagate Momentus ST9250315AS with firmware revision 0001SDM1.
Comment 2 David Zeuthen (not reading bugmail) 2009-10-31 14:05:54 UTC 
This should be done (if it's even possible to sanity-check this particular attribute) in libatasmart, please file a bug here

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=libatasmart

including the binary blob generated with skdump. Thanks.
Comment 3 Gioele Barabucci 2009-10-31 14:48:29 UTC 
Filed as https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24829
Comment 4 Gioele Barabucci 2009-10-31 15:35:40 UTC 
The outcome of bug fd#24829 is that that field has no well-known unit or decoding. In cases like this, couldn't Palimpsest (that is in charge of presenting things to the final user) do something?

I don't know exactly what to suggest but, as a user, I find it very strange to have a field that is way over its declared "worst" value and is still reported as OK. Maybe a little warning could be displayed for fields like this.