If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Hard disk reliability examined once mo HGST rules, Seagateis alarming
On 01/25/2015 02:07 PM, Ant wrote:
On 1/25/2015 7:34 AM, Robert Nichols wrote: On 01/24/2015 11:11 PM, Ant wrote: ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE UPDATED WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE 9 Power_On_Hours 0x0032 100 100 000 Old_age Always - 315 193 Load_Cycle_Count 0x0032 195 195 000 Old_age Always - 17676 At that rate the drive will report attribute 193 "Failing Now" after 742.5 power-on days. I suspect that the drive will probably still work fine (the "1 million cycles" is probably just the number of test cycles run), but you will have to put up with SMART always reporting that the drive has failed. Ugh, I hate that report on old ages. And there's no way to make it shut up about its high values? You can tell the /smartd/ daemon to ignore that attribute. Or, just use idle3-tools to disable that troublesome feature, or at least set the timer to something more reasonable. It's a persistent setting in the drive. You only have to set it once. -- Bob Nichols AT comcast.net I am "RNichols42" |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Hard disk reliability examined once mo HGST rules, Seagateis alarming
On 01/25/2015 02:06 PM, Neill Massello wrote:
Robert Nichols wrote: What does "smartctl -A" report for the Load_Cycle_Count on your WD30EZRX? I checked my WD HDDs and the Green models do indeed have very high load cycle counts per power on hours. The LCC/hr ratios for the two WD30EZRX drives are 9 and 21, whereas it's about 1 for my Blue and Black WD drives. My oldest (1TB) Green drives (with firmware version 01.01A01) have LCC/hr ratios like the Blues and Blacks. It looks like the manic unloading was introduced with the 01.00A01 firmware some time between April and August of 2009. I guess it's good that I have used WD Green drives primarily as "removable" backup storage, so they stay busy for the short periods they're in use and don't rack up really huge LCC counts. My highest LCC is 211346 on a drive that I've had for almost 5 years but has only 5790 power on hours. You can install the Linux idle3-tools package and use it to disable that timer. It's something you need to do only once. The setting in the drive is persistent across power cycles. In a Windows environment, there is a "wdidle3" package that can be downloaded from WD, though you have to ignore the warning that it is only for a couple of obscure drive models. -- Bob Nichols AT comcast.net I am "RNichols42" |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Hard disk reliability examined once mo HGST rules, Seagate is alarming
In article ,
Robert Nichols wrote: On 01/25/2015 03:12 AM, Neill Massello wrote: Ant wrote: That drive is old, but these WD green drives are new? They use that power down option as a default feature from what I read. Others can clarify this for us. Over the past six years, I have used ten WD Green drives. Nine are still in use, including two fairly recent WD30EZRX models. None has ever spun down of its own accord. Whatever you have read might apply to external WD drives, but it isn't true of their internal Green drives. They don't spin down, just move the heads off of the platters. You can look at SMART attribute 193 Load_Cycle_Count and see it growing rapidly toward its spec. limit. I had one where I saw the count growing above 150,000 after about 3 months. The spec. stated a lifetime of 300,000. Do the math. (On newer drives the spec. has been raised to 1,000,000. That still doesn't work out to a very long life.) What does "smartctl -A" report for the Load_Cycle_Count on your WD30EZRX? Their corrupted firmware settings are not limited to rapid head parking. The spin down idle timer can be as short as few seconds, as I found out last time I bough a pair of WD drives. I don't like relying on luck to get working hard drives so I quit buying WD for a while. -- I will not see posts from astraweb, theremailer, dizum, or google because they host Usenet flooders. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Hard disk reliability examined once mo HGST rules, Seagate is alarming
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage cjt wrote:
On 01/22/2015 10:14 AM, Ant wrote: http://arstechnica.com/information-t...e-is-alarming/ "Backblaze operates disks outside of the manufacturer's specified parameters. Avoid doing that. My Seagates are doing fine. Th thing is that failure (not too much) outside specified parameters scales down to inside specified parameters. Seagate will still be amssively less reliable in normal conditions than HGST, just not as catastrophically bad. Arno |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Hard disk reliability examined once mo HGST rules, Seagateis alarming
On 01/29/2015 01:20 PM, Arno wrote:
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage cjt wrote: On 01/22/2015 10:14 AM, Ant wrote: http://arstechnica.com/information-t...e-is-alarming/ "Backblaze operates disks outside of the manufacturer's specified parameters. Avoid doing that. My Seagates are doing fine. Th thing is that failure (not too much) outside specified parameters scales down to inside specified parameters. Seagate will still be amssively less reliable in normal conditions than HGST, just not as catastrophically bad. Arno There's a lot buried in that "not too much." I think you're making too broad a statement -- essentially an assumption (and we all know the saying about those). |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Hard disk reliability examined once mo HGST rules, Seagate is alarming
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage cjt wrote:
On 01/29/2015 01:20 PM, Arno wrote: In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage cjt wrote: On 01/22/2015 10:14 AM, Ant wrote: http://arstechnica.com/information-t...e-is-alarming/ "Backblaze operates disks outside of the manufacturer's specified parameters. Avoid doing that. My Seagates are doing fine. Th thing is that failure (not too much) outside specified parameters scales down to inside specified parameters. Seagate will still be amssively less reliable in normal conditions than HGST, just not as catastrophically bad. Arno There's a lot buried in that "not too much." I think you're making too broad a statement -- essentially an assumption (and we all know the saying about those). If you are too much outside the parameters, you get immediate catastrophic failure. Backblaze obviously has not had that because 1) they know better 2) it is reversible (not too often) So, no, I am not making an assumption here, I just apply standard reliability theory. But suit yourself, I habe little patience these days arguing with those that cannot be bothered to learn the basics before commenting on complex things. Arno |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Hard disk reliability examined once mo HGST rules, Seagateis alarming
On 02/03/2015 03:58 AM, Arno wrote:
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage cjt wrote: On 01/29/2015 01:20 PM, Arno wrote: In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage cjt wrote: On 01/22/2015 10:14 AM, Ant wrote: http://arstechnica.com/information-t...e-is-alarming/ "Backblaze operates disks outside of the manufacturer's specified parameters. Avoid doing that. My Seagates are doing fine. Th thing is that failure (not too much) outside specified parameters scales down to inside specified parameters. Seagate will still be amssively less reliable in normal conditions than HGST, just not as catastrophically bad. Arno There's a lot buried in that "not too much." I think you're making too broad a statement -- essentially an assumption (and we all know the saying about those). If you are too much outside the parameters, you get immediate catastrophic failure. Backblaze obviously has not had that because 1) they know better 2) it is reversible (not too often) So, no, I am not making an assumption here, I just apply standard reliability theory. But suit yourself, I habe little patience these days arguing with those that cannot be bothered to learn the basics before commenting on complex things. Arno I'm pretty sure ANY disk drive will fail if operated "far enough" outside its spec'd parameters. So unless you're prepared to precisely quantify "not too much" as opposed to "far enough" you're back in the realm of assumption. And there's no reason to believe manufacturers would agree on what is "not too much" unless to say that any amount is too much. That's why we have specs in the first place. Ignore them at your peril, and don't whine about the results. I, too, have little patience for people who cannot be bothered to learn the basics. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Hard disk reliability examined once mo HGST rules, Seagate is alarming
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage cjt wrote:
On 02/03/2015 03:58 AM, Arno wrote: In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage cjt wrote: On 01/29/2015 01:20 PM, Arno wrote: In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage cjt wrote: On 01/22/2015 10:14 AM, Ant wrote: http://arstechnica.com/information-t...e-is-alarming/ "Backblaze operates disks outside of the manufacturer's specified parameters. Avoid doing that. My Seagates are doing fine. Th thing is that failure (not too much) outside specified parameters scales down to inside specified parameters. Seagate will still be amssively less reliable in normal conditions than HGST, just not as catastrophically bad. Arno There's a lot buried in that "not too much." I think you're making too broad a statement -- essentially an assumption (and we all know the saying about those). If you are too much outside the parameters, you get immediate catastrophic failure. Backblaze obviously has not had that because 1) they know better 2) it is reversible (not too often) So, no, I am not making an assumption here, I just apply standard reliability theory. But suit yourself, I habe little patience these days arguing with those that cannot be bothered to learn the basics before commenting on complex things. Arno I'm pretty sure ANY disk drive will fail if operated "far enough" outside its spec'd parameters. So unless you're prepared to precisely quantify "not too much" as opposed to "far enough" you're back in the realm of assumption. And there's no reason to believe manufacturers would agree on what is "not too much" unless to say that any amount is too much. That's why we have specs in the first place. Ignore them at your peril, and don't whine about the results. I, too, have little patience for people who cannot be bothered to learn the basics. You really do not undertstand the difference between catastrophic failure and non-catastrophic failure? Then you are really, really clueless, there is no other way to call it. And since you are unaware of your cluelesness, there is no point in continuing this exchange. Arno |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Hard disk reliability examined once mo HGST rules, Seagateis alarming
On 02/09/2015 10:43 AM, Arno wrote:
In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage cjt wrote: On 02/03/2015 03:58 AM, Arno wrote: In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage cjt wrote: On 01/29/2015 01:20 PM, Arno wrote: In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage cjt wrote: On 01/22/2015 10:14 AM, Ant wrote: http://arstechnica.com/information-t...e-is-alarming/ "Backblaze operates disks outside of the manufacturer's specified parameters. Avoid doing that. My Seagates are doing fine. Th thing is that failure (not too much) outside specified parameters scales down to inside specified parameters. Seagate will still be amssively less reliable in normal conditions than HGST, just not as catastrophically bad. Arno There's a lot buried in that "not too much." I think you're making too broad a statement -- essentially an assumption (and we all know the saying about those). If you are too much outside the parameters, you get immediate catastrophic failure. Backblaze obviously has not had that because 1) they know better 2) it is reversible (not too often) So, no, I am not making an assumption here, I just apply standard reliability theory. But suit yourself, I habe little patience these days arguing with those that cannot be bothered to learn the basics before commenting on complex things. Arno I'm pretty sure ANY disk drive will fail if operated "far enough" outside its spec'd parameters. So unless you're prepared to precisely quantify "not too much" as opposed to "far enough" you're back in the realm of assumption. And there's no reason to believe manufacturers would agree on what is "not too much" unless to say that any amount is too much. That's why we have specs in the first place. Ignore them at your peril, and don't whine about the results. I, too, have little patience for people who cannot be bothered to learn the basics. You really do not undertstand the difference between catastrophic failure and non-catastrophic failure? Then you are really, really clueless, there is no other way to call it. And since you are unaware of your cluelesness, there is no point in continuing this exchange. Arno Whatever. You're living in a fantasy world. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
HGST Unveils World’s First 6TB Hard Drive Packing Helium | Johnny | General | 0 | November 4th 13 07:27 PM |
Hard Disk Reliability | Hari Hari Mau | Storage (alternative) | 25 | December 10th 08 05:35 PM |
Hard Disk Reliability | Hari Hari Mau | Homebuilt PC's | 27 | December 10th 08 05:35 PM |
Constructing a disk system with RAM read speed and RAID 1 reliability | Peter Olcott | General | 10 | September 4th 08 11:00 PM |
Constructing a disk system with RAM read speed and RAID 1 reliability | Peter Olcott | Homebuilt PC's | 10 | September 4th 08 11:00 PM |