New pc build with i7 3770K

Started Apr 21, 2013 | Discussions
theswede
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,936Gear list
Like?
Re: New pc build with i7 3770K
In reply to ilysaml, May 5, 2013

you're right about the bad performance from Reading/Writing to the same drive, but in fact, not too many users use 3TB drives as a single partition,

I honestly thought everyone did. Your comments here are the first time I ever hear of anyone partitioning them. No-one I ever talked to partitions 3TB drives. Most support requests I get are about how to merge several 1-3TB drives to one bigger partition. What's the point of partitioning it in smaller chunks? And why on EARTH would you copy large files between partitions on the same drive?? Your workflow must be really weird!

Jesper

 theswede's gear list:theswede's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Konica Minolta Maxxum 5D Sony SLT-A37 Sony 50mm F1.4 +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
theswede
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,936Gear list
Like?
Re: WD green drives stink
In reply to Jim Cockfield, May 5, 2013

It's usually not as much of an issue in most Windows configs.  But, it's a huge issue with most Linux distributions, and I've also seen some Windows users report the same issues.

I use Green drives exclusively for Linux servers, both my own and those I build for friends and family. There is no issue at all with the parking. The disks stay parked for hours, even days, normally, and the wear (and power use and heat) is minimal. Just as they're supposed to be.

I have no idea how you've configured your Linux systems if you manage to blow HDD's at this rate, but I'd be inclined to call it user error at the rates you're describing. There is no reason at all a Linux system should not perform absolutely fantastically with a Green drive, allowing it to sleep when there is no need to access it no matter how long time passes. And there is most definitely no polling going on every 30 seconds unless you ask for it.

What is it you're running which polls your drives every 30 seconds anyway?

Jesper

 theswede's gear list:theswede's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Konica Minolta Maxxum 5D Sony SLT-A37 Sony 50mm F1.4 +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jim Cockfield
Forum ProPosts: 14,801
Like?
Re: WD green drives stink
In reply to theswede, May 5, 2013

theswede wrote:

It's usually not as much of an issue in most Windows configs.  But, it's a huge issue with most Linux distributions, and I've also seen some Windows users report the same issues.

I use Green drives exclusively for Linux servers, both my own and those I build for friends and family. There is no issue at all with the parking. The disks stay parked for hours, even days, normally, and the wear (and power use and heat) is minimal. Just as they're supposed to be.

Have you even taken a look at SMART data from your drives?

If not, I'd suggest doing that.   smartctl can do that for you.   It's included in the smartmontools package you can install in most linux distros.  I'm using distros based on Debian Wheezy (6.0).  But, you'll see the same issues in most other distros, too.

With distros that don't have sudo configured, just open a terminal and do it this way after installing smartmontools (entering your root password when prompted), assuming the drive you're checking is /dev/sda. If not, substitute the correct device name for the drive you want to check.

su

smartctl -a /dev/sda

If you're using an ubuntu based distro or another distro using sudo versus su to issue commands as root, do it this way instead:

sudo smartctl -a /dev/sda

Or, just install GSmartcontrol for a GUI front end (as it can make it easier to do that kind of thing, look at logs without issuing separate commands for that purpose, etc.).

It's a *very* well documented issue (excessive load cycle counts with WD Green Drives with Linux).   Just "google" for "load cycle count green" (without the quotes) and you'll find many, many forum threads about the issue with them (over a million page hits right this minute when I just used that search).

The desktop WD Green drives are rated for 300,000 load cycles, and you can easily exceed that in around a year.   The laptop WD Blue Drives are usually rated for 600,000 load cycle counts (not as big of a deal, since they're designed for more frequent head parking, but don't be surprised if a drive you've used for a couple of years as already exceeded the rated maximum).

Note that Western Digital does have a utility you can use to disable that behavior called wdidle3

http://support.wdc.com/product/download.asp?groupid=609&sid=113

Just search for "wdidle3", and again, you'll find loads of page hits about it.   Make sure others have found it works with your specific drive model, and there have been reports of issues with some drives (and anytime you try to update parameters in a drive's firmware, you're taking a risk), since it was originally designed for use with some of their Enterprise (versus consumer) Green Models

But, the WD Green Drives are notorious for having issues, even without the load cycle count issue.

In addition to the issues I've seen with all of them I've bought so far, I just worked with someone over the past few days that has a problem with a WD drive.

It's got sector read errors using both Windows and ddrescue from Linux to try and copy it, even though the SMART data shows no sectors pending reallocation or sectors that have been reallocated. At least the SMART data shows a high raw read error count though.

Even after zero filling the drive (using dd with linux, and booting in a disk with the WD Data Lifeguard utilities on it and zero filling and running diagnostics), it still says it's health is good and it didn't bother to reallocate any of those problem sectors after zero fills, and it won't even complete a short self test without read failures.

IOW, their firmware is really screwed up from my perspective.

BTW, this user had only used Windows with it (Win 7), so the extra wear and tear on the mechanism caused by an excessive load cycle count was not even the problem with that particular drive.

IMO, the WD Green (or some of the laptop blue models for that matter) are just a POS (and I don't mean Point of Sale).    But, suit yourself if you want to risk your data by using them.

I've seen enough problems with them (not only my drives but drives others are using, too), that I'm not going to buy any more of them.

-- hide signature --

JimC
------

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jim Cockfield
Forum ProPosts: 14,801
Like?
same behavior w/all of them (they're a POS)
In reply to Jim Cockfield, May 5, 2013

Jim Cockfield wrote:

In addition to the issues I've seen with all of them I've bought so far, I just worked with someone over the past few days that has a problem with a WD drive.

It's got sector read errors using both Windows and ddrescue from Linux to try and copy it, even though the SMART data shows no sectors pending reallocation or sectors that have been reallocated. At least the SMART data shows a high raw read error count though.

Even after zero filling the drive (using dd with linux, and booting in a disk with the WD Data Lifeguard utilities on it and zero filling and running diagnostics), it still says it's health is good and it didn't bother to reallocate any of those problem sectors after zero fills, and it won't even complete a short self test without read failures.

IOW, their firmware is really screwed up from my perspective.

I've seen the same behavior with all of them I've had the [dis] pleasure of working with so far.

Their firmware doesn't bother to remap obviously bad sectors to spares ("hard" sector read errors from Windows and Linux, even using utilities to perform sector by sector copies, and even *after* zero filling the drives, even if you use the WD Lifeguard utilities for that purpose).

The one's I've had problems with so far won't even pass self tests without read failures, yet the drive firmware didn't remap any of the bad sectors to spares, even after zero fills.

If you haven't done so already, I'd strongly suggest looking at their SMART data and doing some self tests.

But, don't trust the drive "health", and don't trust the drive just because the firmware isn't remapping bad sectors to spares (and not just bad at a file system level -- bad at a sector level, too).

Again, any WD Green drive is a POS from my perspective (and again, I don't mean "Point of Sale").

-- hide signature --

JimC
------

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
theswede
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,936Gear list
Like?
Re: WD green drives stink
In reply to Jim Cockfield, May 5, 2013

Jim Cockfield wrote:

theswede wrote:

It's usually not as much of an issue in most Windows configs.  But, it's a huge issue with most Linux distributions, and I've also seen some Windows users report the same issues.

I use Green drives exclusively for Linux servers, both my own and those I build for friends and family. There is no issue at all with the parking. The disks stay parked for hours, even days, normally, and the wear (and power use and heat) is minimal. Just as they're supposed to be.

Have you even taken a look at SMART data from your drives?

Yup. Got a daemon which checks it weekly and emails me if anything pops up. It never does. Install that on all systems I end up responsible for. No issues over three years so far, and none of the disks have load cycle counts over 14000. That feels pretty comfortable, leaving me at decades left on that count.

It's a *very* well documented issue (excessive load cycle counts with WD Green Drives with Linux).   Just "google" for "load cycle count green" (without the quotes) and you'll find many, many forum threads about the issue with them (over a million page hits right this minute when I just used that search).

No idea what those people are doing to their poor systems. I'll go read and see just what's up with that. I have never seen this issue, but then, I also set the systems up to not spin the disks up constantly.

Jesper

 theswede's gear list:theswede's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Konica Minolta Maxxum 5D Sony SLT-A37 Sony 50mm F1.4 +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jim Cockfield
Forum ProPosts: 14,801
Like?
just normal usage -- think about it
In reply to theswede, May 5, 2013

theswede wrote:

Jim Cockfield wrote:

It's a *very* well documented issue (excessive load cycle counts with WD Green Drives with Linux).   Just "google" for "load cycle count green" (without the quotes) and you'll find many, many forum threads about the issue with them (over a million page hits right this minute when I just used that search).

No idea what those people are doing to their poor systems. I'll go read and see just what's up with that. I have never seen this issue, but then, I also set the systems up to not spin the disks up constantly.

Just normal usage.

Think about it.

The WD Green drives park their heads after only *8 seconds* of inactivity.   So, if anything you're doing accesses the drives frequently at a time more than 8 seconds, you can end up with a constant parking/unparking of the drive heads.

That's why you'll see over 1 million page hits if you do something like search for "load cycle count green" (without the quotes) as mentioned in my previous posts.

Again, that's just one issue that is no doubt contributing to wear and tear on the drive mechanism.  But, as previously mentioned, you can find a utility to disable that kind of nutty behavior to prevent that issue if you're using a setup that it's a problem with (as a lot of people have found out).

From my perspective, the bigger issue is premature problems with WD Green drives due to the way their firmware handles sector read errors and reallocation of bad sectors to spares.

I've seen problems with multiple WD Drive models in various sizes (e.g., 640GB, 1TB, 1.5TB) and none of them had remapped any sectors to spares, even though they had obvious sector read errors.

Zero filling them didn't cause a remap of bad sectors to spares either (even if you used WD's own Data Lifeguard software for that purpose), with SMART still claiming the drives were healthy, even though the wouldn't even pass a self test without read failures.

It's almost as if WD deliberately turned off mapping sectors with errors to spares (that's the impression I have of them so far), and wants users to think drives with problems are still OK.

If it were just one WD Green model, I'd suspect a firmware bug.  But, since I've seen the same behavior with multiple models and sizes, I'd suspect some other intent.

So, there is no way I'm going to consider using them again.  Heck, you could give them to me and I wouldn't consider using them for any important data.  Sorry, but I consider them to be a POS.

As for using them in servers in a commercial environment... you've got to be joking.  In addition to the problems I've seen with them, you see warnings in a lot of places about using them in RAID arrays, because they don't support TLDR (Time Limited Data Recovery) like their Enterprise level drives do (a.k.a., ERC/Error Recovery Control if using Seagate Drives).

But, I suspect the problems users are seeing more often are likely caused by their firmware routines for mapping of sectors with read errors, since if the drives don't even try to remap bad sectors to spares (as I've seen with multiple WD Drives with "hard" sector read errors), you may not see see issues with your data until it's too late.

Instead, you may just find that you lost important data later because of bad sectors, even though the health of the drives looks fine when looking at SMART data.   But, I'd do yourself a favor and run some tests of the drives from time to time, too (using something other than WD's software for that purpose). 

Again, based on what I've seen of their behavior so far, I'm not going to buy any more WD Green Drives.

Their low price is attractive.  But, I'm not going to continue putting my data as risk by using them.

-- hide signature --

JimC
------

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
kelpdiver
Senior MemberPosts: 1,902
Like?
Re: just normal usage -- think about it
In reply to Jim Cockfield, May 6, 2013

Jim Cockfield wrote:

That's why you'll see over 1 million page hits if you do something like search for "load cycle count green" (without the quotes) as mentioned in my previous posts.

I get 153,000 hits for "Jim Cockfield sheep."  This isn't meaningful data.

From my perspective, the bigger issue is premature problems with WD Green drives due to the way their firmware handles sector read errors and reallocation of bad sectors to spares.

This is a suspicion you have, but I'm not convinced by your proof of such.

sector remapping is much more behind the curtain - and there is a limit to spares.  Once exceeded, it's not worth remapping - the ship is sinking.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jim Cockfield
Forum ProPosts: 14,801
Like?
there are no remapped sectors with them.
In reply to kelpdiver, May 6, 2013

kelpdiver wrote:

Jim Cockfield wrote:

That's why you'll see over 1 million page hits if you do something like search for "load cycle count green" (without the quotes) as mentioned in my previous posts.

I get 153,000 hits for "Jim Cockfield sheep."  This isn't meaningful data.

Read some of the threads and articles.  Excessive Load Cycle Counts is a well documented issue (as I feel you already know, since you're familiar with the utility to change the drive parameters from what I see of your previous posts).

But, that's not even the most important problem.   Premature problems with them (sector errors) is the main issue I've had with mine (even though I have also seen high load cycle counts with them that may be a contributing factor with some setups)

From my perspective, the bigger issue is premature problems with WD Green drives due to the way their firmware handles sector read errors and reallocation of bad sectors to spares.

This is a suspicion you have, but I'm not convinced by your proof of such.

sector remapping is much more behind the curtain - and there is a limit to spares.  Once exceeded, it's not worth remapping - the ship is sinking.

There were no remapped sectors with the WD Green Drives I've seen issues with according to SMART data from them, even though they had obviously bad sectors with read errors reported by both Windows and Linux (even trying to use apps like acronis to get a disk image backup or using apps like dd and ddrescue from linux to try and get a good sector by sector copy).

Yet, even after zero filling using linux utilities, *and* by booting into Western  Digital's own Data Lifeguard utility and zero filling again, the last one I worked with wouldn't even pass a SMART initiated self test without read failures, and still showed no sectors reallocated to spares.

So, why not if they're working like a modern drive should be and remapping sectors to spares?   Hopefully, they ship them with at least some spares available, as the SMART data from all of them showed no sectors were reallocated.

The last one I helped someone with last week didn't even show any sectors pending reallocation after all of that process (trying to get a good copy of the drive using both Windows and Linux utilities; zero filling it using both Linux utilities and WD's own DOS based Data Lifeguard software).

It did show a high "raw read error" count.   But, nothing we did persuaded it to try and remap any of the bad sectors to spares, with no sectors pending reallocation either according to SMART data from it (even though that is something I have seen with some of my WD Green drives).   And, none of the WD Green Drives I've got with sector errors have attempted to map any sectors to spares.

Again, suit yourself.  But, I sure don't trust them.

-- hide signature --

JimC
------

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
kelpdiver
Senior MemberPosts: 1,902
Like?
Re: there are no remapped sectors with them.
In reply to Jim Cockfield, May 6, 2013

Jim Cockfield wrote:

But, that's not even the most important problem.   Premature problems with them (sector errors) is the main issue I've had with mine (even though I have also seen high load cycle counts with them that may be a contributing factor with some setups)

So are there millions of hits on this too, or are you the only one articulating this view?

Why are they on the supported drives list for Synology and other SMB NAS makers?  These guys would have every reason to disqualify them if this problem were systemic, and particularly if sector remapping was commented out of the firmware.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jim Cockfield
Forum ProPosts: 14,801
Like?
Re: there are no remapped sectors with them.
In reply to kelpdiver, May 6, 2013

kelpdiver wrote:

Jim Cockfield wrote:

But, that's not even the most important problem.   Premature problems with them (sector errors) is the main issue I've had with mine (even though I have also seen high load cycle counts with them that may be a contributing factor with some setups)

So are there millions of hits on this too, or are you the only one articulating this view?

I haven't researched it yet.  I'm just passing on my findings with multiple drives.

My guess is that most users don't bother to try and fix them by doing things like zero filling them and making sure bad sectors are mapped out in EEPROM by the firmware; and instead, just let the OS they're using mark them as bad at the file system level instead.

Most users probably don't even realize they may have data with problems on them either, just because SMART data claims they're still healthy, unless they bother to test the drives.

I don't have any vendetta against WD or anything like that (and I have no reason to promote drives from other vendors either, as I'm just a user of them, with nothing to gain or lose if one drive manufacturer is more successful compared to another)

I just hate for other users to have to go through the same issues I've had.  So, I'm passing on my findings in threads like this one when I see someone considering using WD Green Drives.

Why are they on the supported drives list for Synology and other SMB NAS makers?  These guys would have every reason to disqualify them if this problem were systemic, and particularly if sector remapping was commented out of the firmware.

Even WD tells you not to use them in RAID setups (mostly because they don't support TLER).

I don't even trust them anymore for use in a JBOD setup based on my experience with them, and I certainly wouldn't use them for any important data in a NAS type of setup.  You don't have to do much digging to find users claiming a very high problem rate with them (I've seen users with lots of them in server environments say that approx. 40% failed inside of a year).

But, again, suit yourself.

-- hide signature --

JimC
------

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
kelpdiver
Senior MemberPosts: 1,902
Like?
Re: there are no remapped sectors with them.
In reply to Jim Cockfield, May 6, 2013

Jim Cockfield wrote:

kelpdiver wrote:

So are there millions of hits on this too, or are you the only one articulating this view?

I haven't researched it yet.  I'm just passing on my findings with multiple drives.

My guess is that most users don't bother to try and fix them by doing things like zero filling them and making sure bad sectors are mapped out in EEPROM by the firmware; and instead, just let the OS they're using mark them as bad at the file system level instead.

there were a million hits on the load cycle issue.  Even more on the 4k alignment problems.  And plenty of linux guys with expertise in storage using these kinds of drives.  If your hypothesis were correct or even partially so, these guys would be all over it.  And Synology would be as well, since their reputation suffers when bad drives lead to a RAID failure.

I just hate for other users to have to go through the same issues I've had.  So, I'm passing on my findings in threads like this one when I see someone considering using WD Green Drives.

which forces others like me to counter this, and point out the lack of data you're working with to make this sweeping claim.

Even WD tells you not to use them in RAID setups (mostly because they don't support TLER).

WD would like to sell you a more expensive model.  This first really came up with people doing Tivo upgrades back when DVRs came with tiny little drives.  WD has a DVR specific model - much nicer margin for them.  But everyone managed to do fine with the cheap low margin models.

A few years later, the home filers for massive movie/music storage became common and a lot of them flocked to the green drives as they came out.  You don't care about power consumption, but many do (along with the heat/noise).   The later issues around heading parking and 4k sectors has caused some issues, but those weren't restricted to Greens either.  Same with reliability as capacities went to 1.5, 2, 3, and beyond.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Lucien paulus
Junior MemberPosts: 42
Like?
Re: New pc build with i7 3770K
In reply to philmar, May 7, 2013

if you like to overclock, I would recommend a gigabyte because it is very easy to overclock, for ex. the GA-Z77X-UP5 TH

you can find a very good description for overclocking here: http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/gigabyte_z77_overclocking_guide/1

use as many memory as possible 32Gb, with PS you can't have enough and the actual prices I think it is a nobrainer 239$.

with this mobo you don't need an extra GPU, the on board GPU is enough for PS.

-- hide signature --

Lucien Paulus
EOS 5DMKIII /  EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM / EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM / EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM / EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM / Extender EF 2x II / 550EX / Manfrotto 055pro & 141RC

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jim Cockfield
Forum ProPosts: 14,801
Like?
Re: there are no remapped sectors with them.
In reply to kelpdiver, May 7, 2013

kelpdiver wrote:

Jim Cockfield wrote:

kelpdiver wrote:

So are there millions of hits on this too, or are you the only one articulating this view?

I haven't researched it yet.  I'm just passing on my findings with multiple drives.

My guess is that most users don't bother to try and fix them by doing things like zero filling them and making sure bad sectors are mapped out in EEPROM by the firmware; and instead, just let the OS they're using mark them as bad at the file system level instead.

there were a million hits on the load cycle issue.  Even more on the 4k alignment problems.  And plenty of linux guys with expertise in storage using these kinds of drives.  If your hypothesis were correct or even partially so, these guys would be all over it.  And Synology would be as well, since their reputation suffers when bad drives lead to a RAID failure.

I just hate for other users to have to go through the same issues I've had.  So, I'm passing on my findings in threads like this one when I see someone considering using WD Green Drives.

which forces others like me to counter this, and point out the lack of data you're working with to make this sweeping claim.

Sure, that may not be a huge sampling.  But, when I see those types of issues with multiple drives, I'm not going to continue buying them.

Look... the last one I worked with didn't sow any sectors pending reallocation either, even though it had also problems (as already pointed out, bad sectors detected by both Windows and Linux utilities trying to copy the drive).  A SMART initiated self test also shows read failures.  The SMART data did show a high raw error read count, too.  It just didn't move any sectors to pending reallocation, or try to map them to spares when zero filling them (even when using WD's own tools for that purpose).

So, something (unwanted) is going on with their firmware.

Now, I do have a drive sitting on the shelf that started giving me issues that does show sectors pending reallocation.  So, it may remap those to spares if I zero fill it (since at least it's showing sectors pending reallocation).    I didn't even bother to try and "fix" it with a zero fill, given my experience with the others, as I wouldn't trust using it again.  Instead, I just left it alone as an extra backup.

if I get some time later, I'll zero fill it and see how it behaves.  But, when WD drives don't even move bad sectors to a pending reallocation status (as I've seen in the past with them, including the last one I helped someone with, even after multiple reads trying to copy those sectors at a block with sector read errors), that's a very bad thing from my perspective.

Again, suit yourself.  But, I'm not going to trust using them anymore, and will just buy a different type of drive instead, and leave the WD Green models on my avoid list.

-- hide signature --

JimC
------

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jim Cockfield
Forum ProPosts: 14,801
Like?
This drive...
In reply to Jim Cockfield, May 7, 2013

Jim Cockfield wrote:.

Now, I do have a drive sitting on the shelf that started giving me issues that does show sectors pending reallocation.  So, it may remap those to spares if I zero fill it (since at least it's showing sectors pending reallocation).    I didn't even bother to try and "fix" it with a zero fill, given my experience with the others, as I wouldn't trust using it again.  Instead, I just left it alone as an extra backup.

if I get some time later, I'll zero fill it and see how it behaves.  But, when WD drives don't even move bad sectors to a pending reallocation status (as I've seen in the past with them, including the last one I helped someone with, even after multiple reads trying to copy those sectors at a block with sector read errors), that's a very bad thing from my perspective.

The SMART Data below is from the last one I personally had an issue with (versus one I've helped someone else with recently that wouldn't even move bad sectors to a pending status, despite sector read errors trying to perform copies of it using multiple utilities for that purpose).

At least this one does show sectors pending reallocation, so perhaps it will work "as desired" and move them to spares upon another write to them like you'd get zero filling it.

It's one of their AV-GP series Green Drives, designed for 24x7 operation for applications like video streaming, supposedly able to withstand higher usage, higher temps, etc. in environments where they're being written to continuously, with a lower failure rate.

So, perhaps the firmware in it will work better (since it actually placed sectors with read errors in a pending status).    Again, when time permits, I may zero fill it and see if it behaves correctly.

I didn't bother to try, given my experience with the other WD Drives I had issues with.

But, it only had 233 days of power on time when I started seeing problems with it.  That's pretty absurd from my perspective, with 64 sectors in a pending reallocation status, meaning that they should be moved to spares when writing to them again).

Others have had issues with didn't even bother to move obviously bad sectors to spares, even after initiating self tests that reported read failures, and even after zero filling them (including using WD Lifeguard software for that purpose).

As mentioned before, suit yourself, but I'm not going to buy any more of them, as the drives I've bought so far have all started failing prematurely with sector read errors (not just at a file system level, but at a sector level trying to make block by block copies of them, as well as when performing SMART initiated self tests.

Below is the data from the one that actually shows pending sectors (64 of them pending reallocation, after well under a year on time, despite WDs claims about their AV-GP drive series being designed for 24x7 use with higher temps, etc.).   I posted it earlier in this thread after polling it again.

I notice it also supports Error Recovery Control. So, it may be a better drive compared to their standard "Green" desktop models for error recovery purposes.  But, even if it works as desired (remaps them to spares when zero filling it, which I'll find out when time permits), I wouldn't trust it again, given failing sectors after that short of usage time -- giving me issues after only 233 days of use).

== START OF INFORMATION SECTION ===
Model Family:     Western Digital AV-GP family
Device Model:     WDC WD15EVDS-73V9B0
Serial Number:    WD-WMAVU2482427
Firmware Version: 01.00A01
User Capacity:    1,500,301,910,016 bytes
Device is:        In smartctl database [for details use: -P show]
ATA Version is:   8
ATA Standard is:  Exact ATA specification draft version not indicated
Local Time is:    Wed May  1 15:13:19 2013 EDT
SMART support is: Available - device has SMART capability.
SMART support is: Enabled
=== START OF READ SMART DATA SECTION ===
SMART overall-health self-assessment test result: PASSED
General SMART Values:
Offline data collection status:  (0x84) Offline data collection activity
                                        was suspended by an interrupting command from host.
                                        Auto Offline Data Collection: Enabled.
Self-test execution status:      ( 121) The previous self-test completed having
                                        the read element of the test failed.
Total time to complete Offline
data collection:                 (35400) seconds.
Offline data collection
capabilities:                    (0x7b) SMART execute Offline immediate.
                                        Auto Offline data collection on/off support.
                                        Suspend Offline collection upon new
                                        command.
                                        Offline surface scan supported.
                                        Self-test supported.
                                        Conveyance Self-test supported.
                                        Selective Self-test supported.
SMART capabilities:            (0x0003) Saves SMART data before entering
                                        power-saving mode.
                                        Supports SMART auto save timer.
Error logging capability:        (0x01) Error logging supported.
                                        General Purpose Logging supported.
Short self-test routine
recommended polling time:        (   2) minutes.
Extended self-test routine
recommended polling time:        ( 255) minutes.
Conveyance self-test routine
recommended polling time:        (   5) minutes.
SCT capabilities:              (0x303f) SCT Status supported.
                                        SCT Error Recovery Control supported.
                                        SCT Feature Control supported.
                                        SCT Data Table supported.
SMART Attributes Data Structure revision number: 16
Vendor Specific SMART Attributes with Thresholds:
ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME          FLAG     VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE      UPDATED  WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE
  1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate     0x002f   200   200   051    Pre-fail  Always       -       0
  3 Spin_Up_Time            0x0027   214   186   021    Pre-fail  Always       -       4275
  4 Start_Stop_Count        0x0032   100   100   000    Old_age   Always       -       50
  5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct   0x0033   200   200   140    Pre-fail  Always       -       0
  7 Seek_Error_Rate         0x002e   200   200   000    Old_age   Always       -       0
  9 Power_On_Hours          0x0032   093   093   000    Old_age   Always       -       5662
 10 Spin_Retry_Count        0x0032   100   253   000    Old_age   Always       -       0
 11 Calibration_Retry_Count 0x0032   100   253   000    Old_age   Always       -       0
 12 Power_Cycle_Count       0x0032   100   100   000    Old_age   Always       -       38
192 Power-Off_Retract_Count 0x0032   200   200   000    Old_age   Always       -       19
193 Load_Cycle_Count        0x0032   141   141   000    Old_age   Always       -       179657
194 Temperature_Celsius     0x0022   113   108   000    Old_age   Always       -       37
196 Reallocated_Event_Count 0x0032   200   200   000    Old_age   Always       -       0
197 Current_Pending_Sector  0x0032   200   200   000    Old_age   Always       -       64
198 Offline_Uncorrectable   0x0030   200   200   000    Old_age   Offline      -       17
199 UDMA_CRC_Error_Count    0x0032   200   200   000    Old_age   Always       -       0
200 Multi_Zone_Error_Rate   0x0008   199   199   000    Old_age   Offline      -       261
SMART Error Log Version: 1
No Errors Logged
SMART Self-test log structure revision number 1
Num  Test_Description    Status                  Remaining  LifeTime(hours)  LBA_of_first_error
# 1  Short offline       Completed: read failure       90%      5610         1435135086
# 2  Short offline       Completed: read failure       90%      5596         1435131440
# 3  Short offline       Completed: read failure       90%      5595         1339288601

-- hide signature --

JimC
------

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Chris Noble
Senior MemberPosts: 1,179Gear list
Like?
HDD reliability and UPS
In reply to philmar, May 7, 2013

A lot of commentary on this thread and others about lack of reliability of a lot of HDDs.

The HDD does seem to be the weak link in most computer systems. Some HDDs are better than others, but it is the most mechanically complicated part of the system, and the magnetic coatings on the platters and heads are very fragile and prone to defects and damage, including from electrical spikes that propagate to the heads.

I have a UPS between the wall outlet and my PC. Not just to keep it running when the power goes out, but to block power transients. Expensive "spike filters" don't do a good job at that despite their claims, and the cheap ones are junk. And in the last few seconds before a power outage, there are often a lot of spikes and low-voltage brown-out conditions that may cause damage to sensitive parts of the system, damage that may be invisible at the time and then creates havoc later.

I have not had any HDD problems since I started using a UPS.

This is not a factual proof by any means, but I recommend a UPS for a variety of reasons. If the power outage lasts longer than the battery charge, it will shut down your system before running out of power. I got one with 60 minutes of reserve power. Sometimes it will switch over for a fraction of a second when there is a perturbation on the line.

My system (i7-3770, 16GB RAM, SATA SSD, SATA HDD, external USB HDD) consumes 75W from an 240W 80 PLUS Gold power supply, so the UPS power needs are modest.

 Chris Noble's gear list:Chris Noble's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Lumix G Vario HD 14-140mm F4-5.8 OIS Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
kelpdiver
Senior MemberPosts: 1,902
Like?
Re: there are no remapped sectors with them.
In reply to Jim Cockfield, May 7, 2013

Jim Cockfield wrote:

Sure, that may not be a huge sampling.  But, when I see those types of issues with multiple drives, I'm not going to continue buying them.

And you're going to continue to post whore on the subject without qualifying that lack of sampling.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads