Scan Disk freezes Win98 checking WD20GB

[chip]

ABIT BE6-II v1.2

Win98 Ver 4.10.1998 (No SE)
Intel Pentium III 550E
Intel Corporation 82443BX/ZX 440BX/ZX
Super I/O: Winbond 83977EF-AM (Read from chip)
Clock Chip: RTM520-39D (Read from chip)
Original BIOS ID: 05/22/2000-I440BX-W977-6A69KA1BC-RW
BIOS Upgrade from eSupport:
12/03/2001=I440BX-W977-6A69KA1BC-71
HPT370 Driver - 0.95b
DMA enabled

Memory - SDRAM (2-256 PC133) + (1-128 PC125)
3D RAGE PRO AGP 2X (ATI)
===========

Drive's an old (June 2000) WD205BA currently slaved to C:\ and seems
to read/write fine. Have seen no file corruption. SMART reports all
passing to Everest and there are no flags in DevMgr. No problems with
C:\ or the other drives on the HTP370 controller, scandisk and defrag
run ok on them.

Problem is the system freezes at around 7% when scandisk is run on D:\
This happens when using it once Windows starts or when it runs auto
after a bad shutdown, which doesn't happen too often.

Error check with Partition Magic 8 says, "error #993 Partition
contains open files. Use the operating system check utility."

There are some progs installed on this drive but I don't know of any
files would be open. Certainly none that start with Windows.

Don't know what else to add at this point. I've begun looking through
Google but haven't come up with what to check next.

Thanks for reading,

 

[Rod Speed]

ABIT BE6-II v1.2

Win98 Ver 4.10.1998 (No SE)
Intel Pentium III 550E
Intel Corporation 82443BX/ZX 440BX/ZX
Super I/O: Winbond 83977EF-AM (Read from chip)
Clock Chip: RTM520-39D (Read from chip)
Original BIOS ID: 05/22/2000-I440BX-W977-6A69KA1BC-RW
BIOS Upgrade from eSupport:
12/03/2001=I440BX-W977-6A69KA1BC-71
HPT370 Driver - 0.95b
DMA enabled

Memory - SDRAM (2-256 PC133) + (1-128 PC125)
3D RAGE PRO AGP 2X (ATI)
===========

Drive's an old (June 2000) WD205BA currently slaved
to C:\ and seems to read/write fine. Have seen no file
corruption. SMART reports all passing to Everest

The OKs arent what matters, post the actual report.

and there are no flags in DevMgr.

There normally arent with a bad hard drive.

No problems with C:\ or the other drives on the HTP370
controller, scandisk and defrag run ok on them.

Problem is the system freezes at around 7% when scandisk is run
on D:\ This happens when using it once Windows starts or when it
runs auto after a bad shutdown, which doesn't happen too often.

What happens with scandisk when run from within Win ?

Error check with Partition Magic 8 says, "error #993 Partition
contains open files. Use the operating system check utility."

There are some progs installed on this drive but I don't know of
any files would be open. Certainly none that start with Windows.

Don't know what else to add at this point. I've begun looking
through Google but haven't come up with what to check next.

See above.

 

[chip]

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 20:26:42 +1100, "Rod Speed"

The OKs arent what matters, post the actual report.

Hmm. Almost did, here it is.

Everest v 1.51.195

ID Attribute Description Threshold Value Worst Data
Status
01 Raw Read Error Rate 51 200 200 0
OK: Value is normal
03 Spin Up Time 0 98 98 4150
OK: Always passing
04 Start/Stop Count 40 99 99 1207
OK: Value is normal
05 Reallocated Sector Count-112 198 198 5
OK: Value is normal
09 Power-On Time Count 0 33 33 49334
OK: Always passing
0A Spin Retry Count 51 100 100 0
OK: Value is normal
0B Calibration Retry Count 51 100 99 0
OK: Value is normal
0C Power Cycle Count 0 99 99 1168
OK: Always passing
C4 Reallocation Event Count-0 195 195 5
OK: Always passing
C5 Current Pending Sector Count-0 199 199 4
OK: Always passing
C6 Off-Line Uncorrectable Sector Count-0 199 199 4
OK: Always passing
C7 Ultra ATA CRC Error Rate-0 200 200 5
OK: Always passing
C8 Write Error Rate 51 186 165
60 OK: Value is normal

There normally arent with a bad hard drive.

OK BTW the drive is quiet, no vibration or clicks. This one is
already backed up on an off-line drive but after this came up, it was
copied to a new drive that was just installed w/o incident. Used WD
Lifeguard for the copy and it reported no errors on the 17GB copied.

What happens with scandisk when run from within Win ?

Same. Gets to 7% and the system freezes including the cursor. Close
Program dialogue won't come up, just have to power off. Same for the
3rd party defrag but I believe it uses Windows scandisk for it's error
checking.

See above.

Thanks

 

[Rod Speed]

Hmm. Almost did, here it is.

Urk, that doesnt look that great. The undesirable ones are interleaved.

Everest v 1.51.195

ID Attribute Description Threshold Value Worst Data
Status
01 Raw Read Error Rate 51 200 200 0
OK: Value is normal
03 Spin Up Time 0 98 98 4150
OK: Always passing
04 Start/Stop Count 40 99 99 1207
OK: Value is normal
05 Reallocated Sector Count-112 198 198 5

5 sectors reallocated

OK: Value is normal
09 Power-On Time Count 0 33 33 49334
OK: Always passing
0A Spin Retry Count 51 100 100 0
OK: Value is normal
0B Calibration Retry Count 51 100 99 0
OK: Value is normal
0C Power Cycle Count 0 99 99 1168
OK: Always passing
C4 Reallocation Event Count-0 195 195 5

Thats just a restatement of 05 above.

OK: Always passing
C5 Current Pending Sector Count-0 199 199 4

4 more pending reallocation, should happen when they get written to.

OK: Always passing
C6 Off-Line Uncorrectable Sector Count-0 199 199 4

Those are bad news.

OK: Always passing
C7 Ultra ATA CRC Error Rate-0 200 200 5
OK: Always passing
C8 Write Error Rate 51 186 165

And so are those.

60 OK: Value is normal

Those are likely the reason that scandisk goes flat on its face now.

OK BTW the drive is quiet, no vibration or clicks.

Yeah, the recalibration count is zero.

This one is already backed up on an off-line drive but after this came up,
it was copied to a new drive that was just installed w/o incident. Used WD
Lifeguard for the copy and it reported no errors on the 17GB copied.

Same. Gets to 7% and the system freezes including the cursor. Close
Program dialogue won't come up, just have to power off. Same for the 3rd
party defrag but I believe it uses Windows scandisk for it's error checking.

Yeah, most of them do.

I'd personally just bin the drive because of those problems in the SMART report.

Since its fully backed up, you could try checking that it really is fully backed
up and then try WDs diagnostic on the drive. I wouldnt use it for anything that
matters myself tho even if wiping it with the diagnostic fixes the scandisk problem.

 

[chip]

Urk, that doesnt look that great. The undesirable ones are interleaved.

Crap...er, dang. Just a couple more questions. I'm aware that once the
media on a HDD begins to go bad it can self-destuct in a hurry. ISTR
that even new drives can sometimes have bad sectors though, which are
just identified and marked when the drive is setup so they don't get
used.

5 sectors reallocated

I regret not keeping records of the original state or a SMART history
because I guess there's no way to know how long these have been bad.

Not looking for a reason to keep using this drive but if you knew, for
example, that the drive had been stable in this condition for, say,
two or three years would you see these numbers the same way?

So this is the total time the drive has had power applied to it as in
49,334 hrs? I wonder if this timer keeps running even if the drive is
allowed to spin down. (No longer do that but this drive was set to do
so for a period of time.)

Thats just a restatement of 05 above.


4 more pending reallocation, should happen when they get written to.

OK. I checked the WD site when this drive was purchased and this is
from their spec.:

Bytes Per Sector 512
User Sectors Per Drive 40,088,160

So does this mean that the total of 5+4 bad sections are only 4.5KB?

Those are bad news.

Does that refer to the C5 Pending count?

And so are those.

Again from WD for this drive:

Error Rate (Non-Recoverable) <1 in 1013 bits read

I need to go back and review this stuff again. I never understood it
very well and have forgotten a lot of what I used to know. Maybe the
mfg spec doesn't mean a lot, but is this saying it is a lot higher now
than what to expect from this drive when it's new?

Those are likely the reason that scandisk goes flat on its face now.



Yeah, the recalibration count is zero.
snip


Yeah, most of them do.
snip

I'd personally just bin the drive because of those problems in the SMART report.

Since its fully backed up, you could try checking that it really is fully backed
up and then try WDs diagnostic on the drive. I wouldnt use it for anything that
matters myself tho even if wiping it with the diagnostic fixes the scandisk problem.

Yeah, I've gotten enough miles out of it that pulling it won't hurt a
bit. It's been suspect for a long time just due to it's age anyway.
It's mainly an area for temp storage.

In fact I plugged an 80gig in to replace it year or so ago and saw
some weirdness. It's the topic for another thread or maybe even the
abit group but in the same configuration as now, on a newly formatted
80, Windows Explorer showed the directories of a different drive on
the HTP controller.

To try and make it clear there were a total of 5 HDDs and 2 CD-Roms.
The system drive and the new 80 were on IDE01 and the opticals on
IDE02. Only 3 HDDs were on the HPT controller.

D was a mirror of G w/o actually having anything on it. You could go
through the dirs and access files just as if you were looking at G.
You could also click back over to G and do the same thing. Didn't have
time to deal with it so just pulled the drive and put this old 20 back
in. Thanks for looking this over and for your comments.

 

[Rod Speed]

Crap...er, dang. Just a couple more questions. I'm aware that once
the media on a HDD begins to go bad it can self-destuct in a hurry.

Yes, but that isnt what is happening in your case,
you'd see a lot more bad sectors if that was happening.

ISTR that even new drives can sometimes have bad sectors though,

All modern drives always do have bad sectors, but they should be invisibly
mapped away in the factory and you shouldnt see any in the SMART report.

The main exception is the Maxtors which are much less conservative
with the factory mapped bads and which ship with write checking
enabled for the first N power cycles, which do reallocate some
more bad sectors that show up in use in that initial use period.

which are just identified and marked when
the drive is setup so they don't get used.

Yes, that is what the reallocation process is about.

I regret not keeping records of the original state or a SMART history
because I guess there's no way to know how long these have been bad.

Yeah, its well worth checking over time and keeping track of the changes for that reason.

Not looking for a reason to keep using this drive but if you knew,
for example, that the drive had been stable in this condition for, say,
two or three years would you see these numbers the same way?

Normally not. Once you start starting to see a significant number
of bad sectors, the problem usually continues to get worse.

So this is the total time the drive has had power applied to it as in 49,334 hrs?
Yes.

I wonder if this timer keeps running even if the drive is allowed to spin down.

Yes, but not when its turned off.

(No longer do that but this drive was set to do so for a period of time.)

Yeah, there really isnt any point in doing it with desktop drives, only with
laptop/notebook drives running on batterys for longer time on battery.

OK. I checked the WD site when this drive
was purchased and this is from their spec.:

Bytes Per Sector 512
User Sectors Per Drive 40,088,160

So does this mean that the total of 5+4 bad sections are only 4.5KB?
Yes.

Does that refer to the C5 Pending count?

No, those are ones its decided arent recoverable.

Again from WD for this drive:

Error Rate (Non-Recoverable) <1 in 1013 bits read

Thats a different number, you shouldnt have a write
error rate like the C8 value like that with a good drive.

I need to go back and review this stuff again. I never understood
it very well and have forgotten a lot of what I used to know.

Yeah, its a bit complicated and the detail varys with the drive manufacturer too.

Maybe the mfg spec doesn't mean a lot, but is this saying it is a
lot higher now than what to expect from this drive when it's new?

Yes, you shouldnt have a write error rate
like the C8 value like that with a good drive.

Yeah, I've gotten enough miles out of it that pulling it won't hurt a bit.
It's been suspect for a long time just due to it's age anyway.
It's mainly an area for temp storage.

In fact I plugged an 80gig in to replace it year or so ago and saw
some weirdness. It's the topic for another thread or maybe even the
abit group but in the same configuration as now, on a newly formatted
80, Windows Explorer showed the directories of a different drive on
the HTP controller.

To try and make it clear there were a total of 5 HDDs and 2 CD-Roms.
The system drive and the new 80 were on IDE01 and the opticals on
IDE02. Only 3 HDDs were on the HPT controller.

D was a mirror of G w/o actually having anything on it. You could
go through the dirs and access files just as if you were looking at G.
You could also click back over to G and do the same thing.

Yeah, something stuffed there.

Didn't have time to deal with it so just pulled the drive and put this
old 20 back in. Thanks for looking this over and for your comments.

No problem, that's what these technical newsgroups are for.

 

[chip]

Yes, but that isnt what is happening in your case,
you'd see a lot more bad sectors if that was happening.

OK, it didn't look like it. I watched a 6gig WD go to pieces once and
it only took a few days. Kinda funny though, that one only lasted 2
yrs and 8 days but another I got at the same time just like it, still
works fine.

All modern drives always do have bad sectors, but they should be invisibly
mapped away in the factory and you shouldnt see any in the SMART report.

I did not know that. Saw some links about SMART in other posts, I'll
do some more reading.

snip

Yes.

That seems like a tiny % to me. If it stopped there I could live with
it.

snip

Thats a different number, you shouldnt have a write
error rate like the C8 value like that with a good drive.


Yeah, its a bit complicated and the detail varys with the drive manufacturer too.


Yes, you shouldnt have a write error rate
like the C8 value like that with a good drive.

I am guessing that this may suggest a problem with some component(s)
of the drive other than the media itself then. It's a good excuse to
get a bigger drive in it anyway though.

snipDefinitely will take it out of service, may have to hold on to it for
sentimental value though.

snip

Yeah, something stuffed there.

Alright, I'll get over and harass the abit group a little.

No problem, that's what these technical newsgroups are for.

It's great seeing them used that way, thanks again for your time.

Cheers,


Just for the record here's a WD that's seen regular use as a system
drive since about 1998. I remember thinking what a good deal it was at
$168.00.

1/24/07
Everest v 1.51.195
WDC WD64A- 6.4GB C:\
IDAttribute DescriptionThresholdValueWorstData
01Raw Read Error Rate 51 200 200 0
03Spin Up Time 0 106 104 1300
04Start/Stop Count 40 98 98 200 0
05Reallocated Sector Count 112 200 200 0
09Power-On Time Count 0 30 30 51329
0ASpin Retry Count 51 100 100 0
0BCalibration Retry Count 51 100 100 0
0CPower Cycle Count 0 99 99 122 0
C5Current Pending Sector Count 0 200 200 0
C6Off-Line Uncorrectable Sector Count 0 200 200 0
C7Ultra ATA CRC Error Rate 0 200 200 0
C8Write Error Rate 51 200 200 0

 

[Arno Wagner]

Crap...er, dang. Just a couple more questions. I'm aware that once the
media on a HDD begins to go bad it can self-destuct in a hurry. ISTR
that even new drives can sometimes have bad sectors though, which are
just identified and marked when the drive is setup so they don't get
used.
I regret not keeping records of the original state or a SMART history
because I guess there's no way to know how long these have been bad.

Not looking for a reason to keep using this drive but if you knew, for
example, that the drive had been stable in this condition for, say,
two or three years would you see these numbers the same way?

My rule of thumb is this: Defect sector and other, likely defect sector
related problems => discard. Number of defect sectors increases
over time (say by more than 1 per week) => discard.

If the drive works fine, some defects are not an issue. I have on
older 200G Maxtor in a compute server that at one time about 2 years
ago suddenly had about 300 defects from one hour to another, but
then never any additional ones.

Of course what you need for a good evaluation os a log of how the
defects increased over time. If you just see a number of defects, you
cannot know whether they are new or old. A reasonable procedure in
this case is to run a long SMART selftest and observe whether the
defect number increases. Then operate the drive for some days/weeks
more and also monitor the number of defects.

Of course, if the data is critical, then it may be a good idea to
replace a drive on any defetcs and to use RAID 0/5/6 and frequent
backups in addition.

[...]

Does that refer to the C5 Pending count?

It should. It means that for 4 sectors all attempts by the drive
have failed to get the data. It means you lost 4 * 512 Bytes.
It does not necessarily mean the drive is bad, but is a good hint.
Usually sectors are marked as bad and reallocated when they are
still readable, but the effort needed is high. Thdes are "hard"
defects.

Again from WD for this drive:

Error Rate (Non-Recoverable) <1 in 1013 bits read

That is a bit of a fictional number and basically given to
say something. Dives perform way better than that today.
10^13 bits are about 12TB. For a 500GB drive that would mean
one uncorrectable error per 24 complete disk reads. That does
not match my experiences at all.

Yeah, I've gotten enough miles out of it that pulling it won't hurt a
bit. It's been suspect for a long time just due to it's age anyway.
It's mainly an area for temp storage.

Then throw it away. Its still a good idea to invest some reasonable
effort (as you have done) to find out what the problem is.

Arno

 

[Rod Speed]

OK, it didn't look like it. I watched a 6gig WD go to pieces once and
it only took a few days. Kinda funny though, that one only lasted 2 yrs
and 8 days but another I got at the same time just like it, still works fine.

Nothing unusual about that, you dont see a very high failure rate very often.

I did not know that. Saw some links about
SMART in other posts, I'll do some more reading.

That seems like a tiny % to me.
Sure.

If it stopped there I could live with it.

Thats unlikely.

I am guessing that this may suggest a problem with some
component(s) of the drive other than the media itself then.
Yep.

It's a good excuse to get a bigger drive in it anyway though.

Yeah, 20G isnt that big today.

And costs peanuts too.

Definitely will take it out of service, may have
to hold on to it for sentimental value though.

Just dont make a little shrine for it |-}

Alright, I'll get over and harass the abit group a little.

It's great seeing them used that way, thanks again for your time.

Just for the record here's a WD that's seen regular use as a system drive
since about 1998. I remember thinking what a good deal it was at $168.00.

1/24/07
Everest v 1.51.195
WDC WD64A- 6.4GB C:\
IDAttribute DescriptionThresholdValueWorstData
01Raw Read Error Rate 51 200 200 0
03Spin Up Time 0 106 104 1300
04Start/Stop Count 40 98 98 200 0
05Reallocated Sector Count 112 200 200 0
09Power-On Time Count 0 30 30 51329
0ASpin Retry Count 51 100 100 0
0BCalibration Retry Count 51 100 100 0
0CPower Cycle Count 0 99 99 122 0
C5Current Pending Sector Count 0 200 200 0
C6Off-Line Uncorrectable Sector Count 0 200 200 0
C7Ultra ATA CRC Error Rate 0 200 200 0
C8Write Error Rate 51 200 200 0

Yeah, that's what a good drive should look like.

 

[chip]

Thats unlikely.

I swear I could!

snip

Yeah, 20G isnt that big today.

And costs peanuts too.

Exactly. It's not like anything can be done to repair one anyway.
Only part that smarts a little is that I'm thinking what I gave for
that 20 would buy a 250 today. Hard to complain about prices
going down though isn't it?

Just dont make a little shrine for it |-}

OK, just a simple wooden cross. Maybe fill it with music and let it
sing it's way back to the æther...

snip
2/8/00 - 1/24/07... tick, tick, tick...

Yeah, that's what a good drive should look like.

Yeah! Till you're better paid, thanks again.

 

[chip]

My rule of thumb is this: Defect sector and other, likely defect sector
related problems => discard. Number of defect sectors increases
over time (say by more than 1 per week) => discard.

Sounds reasonable to me. I would not expect anyone to try and put too
fine a point on this.

If the drive works fine, some defects are not an issue. I have on
older 200G Maxtor in a compute server that at one time about 2 years
ago suddenly had about 300 defects from one hour to another, but
then never any additional ones.

That's curious. I'd bet those familiar with refurbishing drives would
have some interesting things to tell as well. Makes me wonder if a
drive manufacturer has ever released information about what parts of
their drives fail most frequently.

Of course what you need for a good evaluation os a log of how the
defects increased over time. If you just see a number of defects, you
cannot know whether they are new or old. A reasonable procedure in
this case is to run a long SMART selftest and observe whether the
defect number increases. Then operate the drive for some days/weeks
more and also monitor the number of defects.

Yes I can see how some history would give a person something better to
base a judgement on than what I had to show. If someone has 5K drives
in service they might still be interested in knowing what to expect in
the near future even if they were rigged to prevent data loss. Budget
projections & all that.

Of course, if the data is critical, then it may be a good idea to
replace a drive on any defetcs and to use RAID 0/5/6 and frequent
backups in addition.

Sure and I apologize for not making it clear in the beginning that
this was about a hobby machine and not a critical or commercial app.
The difference between a curiosity and a catastrophe is really in
having things backed up. I can see a person is better off giving time
and attention to making sure a drive failure can have no impact at all
rather than trying to guess when it will occur.

[...]

Does that refer to the C5 Pending count?

It should. It means that for 4 sectors all attempts by the drive
have failed to get the data. It means you lost 4 * 512 Bytes.
It does not necessarily mean the drive is bad, but is a good hint.
Usually sectors are marked as bad and reallocated when they are
still readable, but the effort needed is high. Thdes are "hard"
defects.

In that case unrecoverable errors are a failure of the drives ability
to identify fading sectors then? Or maybe just sudden failures that
were impossible to predict.

Then throw it away. Its still a good idea to invest some reasonable
effort (as you have done) to find out what the problem is.

Yeah at todays prices it isn't worth $5 even in good shape. The real
effort is on the part of people who read these groups on a regular
basis and take their time to give answers. I thank you for yours.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Sounds reasonable to me.

Nope. First and second sentence contradict each other.
It's either the one or the other. The babblehead is just babbling again.

I would not expect anyone to try and put too fine a point on this.

Yet you should. If the source of the problem is external to the drive
a replacement may suffer the same fate.

That's curious.

Yeah, the babblebot contradicting himself once again, as always.
Says one thing, obviously does another himself.

I'd bet those familiar with refurbishing drives would
have some interesting things to tell as well. Makes me wonder if a
drive manufacturer has ever released information about what parts of
their drives fail most frequently.

Of course what you need for a good evaluation os a log of how the
defects increased over time. If you just see a number of defects, you
cannot know whether they are new or old. A reasonable procedure in
this case is to run a long SMART selftest and observe whether the
defect number increases. Then operate the drive for some days/weeks
more and also monitor the number of defects.

Yes I can see how some history would give a person something better to
base a judgement on than what I had to show. If someone has 5K drives
in service they might still be interested in knowing what to expect in
the near future even if they were rigged to prevent data loss. Budget
projections & all that.

Of course, if the data is critical, then it may be a good idea to
replace a drive on any defetcs and to use RAID 0/5/6 and frequent
backups in addition.

Sure and I apologize for not making it clear in the beginning that
this was about a hobby machine and not a critical or commercial app.
The difference between a curiosity and a catastrophe is really in
having things backed up. I can see a person is better off giving time
and attention to making sure a drive failure can have no impact at all
rather than trying to guess when it will occur.

[...]

C6 Off-Line Uncorrectable Sector Count-0 199 199 4 OK: Always passing
Those are bad news.

No, not really. The negative threshold is curious tho.

Nope, it's just likely, in this particular case. C6 is just supplemental information.

Not necessarily four. It don't necessarily need to be 4 different sectors,
just that 4 sectors were encountered during offline tests, they could well
be the same one(s).

Not necessarily either. Nowhere says that those sectors were in his
files. They may well have been encountered during a surface scan.
As a matter of fact he said he could backup his files without data loss.

Again, that is contradictory.

Nope. Only if the drive replaces them on a next write are they likely
to be hard defects. Since that has yet to happen, you just can't tell.
They can be bad writes and perfectly usable on the next write.

In that case unrecoverable errors are a failure of the drives ability
to identify fading sectors then?

Yes and no. It's not a failure, it's just an inability, it is not designed
to differentiate between a bad write and a poor read. All it checks for
is a good ECC. Write an incomplete sector and you have a hard defect.

Or maybe just sudden failures that were impossible to predict.

Exactly. Power drop, overheating, physical shock, etc.

Well, it's certainly curious.
But it may well be tied to the 05 Reallocated Sector Count:
A recent/current drive is not supposed to have write errors except
for when it can't find a sector. Writes themselves aren't checked,
except in the reallocation process where drives do a writecheck. So
reallocation could produce write errors that are totally acceptable.

Yeah at todays prices it isn't worth $5 even in good shape.

The real effort is on the part of people who read these groups on a
regular basis
Bwahahah.

and take their time to give answers.

Answers, yes. Take their time, no. The babblebots, they just like to babble.
Whitnessed by the fact that both babblebots failed to recognize that
the report shows Power On time almost as long as the drive is old and
that is has some negative values for some of the thresholds.
It's not exactly a trustworthy report.

You may draw your own conclusions from that.