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"

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"

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.

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

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).

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

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.

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

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.