I have a WDC WD20EARS for 3 months and the drive fails both ouick and extended data life guard tests. The results are these:
Test Option: QUICK TEST
Model Number: WDC WD20EARS-00MVWB0
Unit Serial Number: [Deleted]
Firmware Number: 51.0AB51
Capacity: 2000.40 GB
SMART Status: PASS
Test Result: FAIL
Test Error Code: 06-Quick Test on drive 1 did not complete! Status code = 07 (Failed read test element), Failure Checkpoint = 97 (Unknown Test) SMART self-test did not complete on drive 1!
Test Time: 00:28:35, March 08, 2011
Test Option: EXTENDED TEST
Model Number: WDC WD20EARS-00MVWB0
Unit Serial Number: [Deleted]
Firmware Number: 51.0AB51
Capacity: 2000.40 GB
SMART Status: PASS
Test Result: FAIL
Test Error Code: 08-Error was detected while repairing bad sectors.
Test Time: 09:16:45, March 08, 2011
My question is what should i do next. The drive has warranty. Schould i take the drive back to the store for replacement??
I live in Germany. Please advise. Will i get a new drive or a refurbisched drive?
Since the tests have failed, the drive is really going to fail or is failing. Save the resulting from Data Life Guard and find the RMA process. I live in North America and the RMA process is abut 3 weeks. In other conutries, it has been sometime 6 months.
I believe that it would be safest for the store to replace your drive. AIUI, WD will send you a refurbished unit whereas the store is likely to give you a new drive from stock.
I have nearly the same problem but in fact completely different.
The point is, since yesterday I get an error in Windows 7 telling me that my hard drive (WDC WD20EARS …) will maybe not work anymore. I downloaded the tool from WD support page and ran the quick test, which could not be finished because of an error (see the picture in the appendix). Then I thought I maybe would get further information or some other critical errors when running the extended test. But it completed without any errors. That curious, I think.
Is the quick test, or let’s say S.M.A.R.T reliable? Or is everything working fine because of the extended test?
I have nearly the same problem but in fact completely different.
The point is, since yesterday I get an error in Windows 7 telling me that my hard drive (WDC WD20EARS …) will maybe not work anymore. I downloaded the tool from WD support page and ran the quick test, which could not be finished because of an error (see the picture in the appendix). Then I thought I maybe would get further information or some other critical errors when running the extended test. But it completed without any errors. That curious, I think.
Is the quick test, or let’s say S.M.A.R.T reliable? Or is everything working fine because of the extended test?
That said, several people have reported problems with this particular attribute after updating the firmware on a Seagate drive using the Windows version of Seagate’s updater. One person even reported that his Intel SSD was affected in a similar manner.
I notice that Data LifeGuard detects your drive as drive #2. Do you also have a Seagate drive?
Indeed, my first hdd is a Seagate. I have to mention that the Seagate drive is a bit older and I manually made no firmware update to this drive. But in fact I have no idea if maybe windows update could do this to improve interoperability. I guess not.
The WD drive on the other hand is brand new - what means only a few weeks old. Since yesterday I had no problems. I saved all my data on a separate USB drive and experienced no further problems today - except Windows still told me that something could be wrong with the WD drive. If there is another solution than bringt it back to the retailer I would be very thankful. Maybe you know any solution if you have heard of that problem.
I very much doubt that your WD problem has anything to do with the Seagate drive. In fact I am at a loss to understand how Seagate’s firmware updater was able to affect those other drives in this way.
As for a solution, I suspect that it would involve replacing the SDRAM chip on the drive’s PCB, if that is indeed the culprit. However, I doubt that you would want to do that.
FYI, the following document explains the End-to-End Error Count attribute:
