Are you really? "Non-recoverable Read Errors per Bits Read, Max", say Seagate - that just means it couldn't correct, not that it couldn't detect there was an error.
> are you saying they are overestimating the error rate?
Perhaps not, as a general order-of-magnitude upper-bound on a marginal drive in poor conditions, but certainly if you're interpreting it as an average. Too many people would be seeing it happen way too often to keep quiet about it otherwise.
> Used to be you never got corruption, just success or fail
Are you really? "Non-recoverable Read Errors per Bits Read, Max", say Seagate - that just means it couldn't correct, not that it couldn't detect there was an error.
> are you saying they are overestimating the error rate?
Perhaps not, as a general order-of-magnitude upper-bound on a marginal drive in poor conditions, but certainly if you're interpreting it as an average. Too many people would be seeing it happen way too often to keep quiet about it otherwise.
> Used to be you never got corruption, just success or fail
I wish :/