UltraDMA CRC error rate below ttheshold value in SMART

[Osiris]

Hard Disk inspector reports a 40 Gb (Maxtor 6L040J2) the UltraDMS CRC
error rate (index 199) value in the SMART table is well below its
threshold value.
Should I start worrying ?

strange enough, it is the drive that shows a temp of 37 celsius,
whereas the other maxtor shows 18 celsius.... same mounting position,
same air...

 

[Rod Speed]

Hard Disk inspector reports a 40 Gb (Maxtor 6L040J2) the UltraDMS CRC
error rate (index 199) value in the SMART table is well below its threshold value.

Should I start worrying ?

Nope, that is normally a problem with the cable.

The usual causes are a ribbon cable longer than the legal 18", one
of those stupid standard flouting round cables, or just a bad cable.

strange enough, it is the drive that shows a temp of 37 celsius, whereas
the other maxtor shows 18 celsius.... same mounting position, same air...

18 sounds impossible, presumably its summer there and
that is below the ambient temp, which flouts basic physics.

 

[kony]

Hard Disk inspector reports a 40 Gb (Maxtor 6L040J2) the UltraDMS CRC
error rate (index 199) value in the SMART table is well below its
threshold value.
Should I start worrying ?

Are you sure you know how to use that software?

Usually the issue is when the error rate goes well ABOVE the
threshold value, not well below it.

strange enough, it is the drive that shows a temp of 37 celsius,
whereas the other maxtor shows 18 celsius.... same mounting position,
same air...

Get rid of hard disk inspector and do two things.

1) Run the HDD manufacturers' diagnostics.

2) Try filling the drive with data then copy it back
elsewhere and do some CRC checks on it.

The drive manufacturer is the one who knows when a drive has
a problematic state that should trigger a Smart warning and
that is how they set it up. If there were more reliable
early warning signs, they'd simply use them to trigger the
SMART warning earlier. Hard Disk inspector seems to be a
product without a need.

 

[Rod Speed]

Are you sure you know how to use that software?

Usually the issue is when the error rate goes well
ABOVE the threshold value, not well below it.

Get rid of hard disk inspector and do two things.

No need, its not a bad way of looking at the SMART data.

1) Run the HDD manufacturers' diagnostics.

Wont help with UltraDMA CRC error rate.

2) Try filling the drive with data then copy it back
elsewhere and do some CRC checks on it.

Wont help with UltraDMA CRC errors. They get corrected at
the ATA protocol level, so you wont see CRC errors in the files.

Thats the whole point of the ATA UltraDMA CRC system,
correcting errors in files transferred over the cable.

The drive manufacturer is the one who knows when a drive
has a problematic state that should trigger a Smart warning
and that is how they set it up. If there were more reliable
early warning signs, they'd simply use them to trigger the
SMART warning earlier. Hard Disk inspector seems to
be a product without a need.

It allows the SMART data to be inspected. Thats
a lot better than a mindless SMART pass/fail.

 

[Osiris]

Are you sure you know how to use that software?

I learned by now, that the SMART software is unequivocal.
Data is now standard most of the time.

Usually the issue is when the error rate goes well ABOVE the
threshold value, not well below it.

I read that is is not supposed to be lower...
Some software says its ok, some the opposite...


that's why I check here too.
Ultimately, it is all my own decision/error.

Get rid of hard disk inspector and do two things.

1) Run the HDD manufacturers' diagnostics.

Maxtor does not do much in that field.

2) Try filling the drive with data then copy it back
elsewhere and do some CRC checks on it.

The drive manufacturer is the one who knows when a drive has
a problematic state that should trigger a Smart warning and
that is how they set it up. If there were more reliable
early warning signs,

there may be...
and the drive is some 3+ years old, working long hours/weeks.
Has been running for a year continuously... day/night.
before that normal daily use a few years...
So no tears, if my data stay safe... copied etc.

 

[kony]

No need, its not a bad way of looking at the SMART data.

You imply a need to look at it.

Wont help with UltraDMA CRC error rate.


Wont help with UltraDMA CRC errors. They get corrected at
the ATA protocol level, so you wont see CRC errors in the files.

While that is true, what are you concluding to need help?

You do realize that a perfectly working disk subsystem has 0
CRC errors, zero also being "well below it's threshold
value". Based on the info provided, we not only have no
reason to suspect a problem, but the beginnings of evidence
that there isn't one.

Thats the whole point of the ATA UltraDMA CRC system,
correcting errors in files transferred over the cable.

.... and the point of a tire inner tube might be to repair a
tire but you'll have to find a tire that needs one.

It allows the SMART data to be inspected. Thats
a lot better than a mindless SMART pass/fail.

.... only if you think you know more about that particular
drive than the manufacturer who set the SMART thresholds for
pass/fail in the first place.

 

[Rod Speed]

You imply a need to look at it.

I'm happy to state that explicitly. Plenty of drives are too conservative
on the SMART pass/fail and you can get useful information from the
actual data, most obviously with this data and the temperature too.

While that is true, what are you concluding to need help?

God knows what you 'think' that pathetic excuse for a sentance
is about. Your 'suggestion' to check the CRC of files is completely
useless when the whole point of the ATA UltraDMA CRC system
is to resend the data when an UltraDMA CRC error shows up.

You do realize that a perfectly working disk subsystem has 0
CRC errors, zero also being "well below it's threshold value".

Irrelevant to your 'suggestion' to check the CRC of files when
the whole point of the ATA UltraDMA CRC system is to resend
the data when an UltraDMA CRC error shows up.

Based on the info provided, we not only
have no reason to suspect a problem, but
the beginnings of evidence that there isn't one.

Irrelevant to your 'suggestion' to check the CRC of files when
the whole point of the ATA UltraDMA CRC system is to resend
the data when an UltraDMA CRC error shows up.

... and the point of a tire inner tube might be to repair
a tire but you'll have to find a tire that needs one.

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

... only if you think you know more about that particular drive than the
manufacturer who set the SMART thresholds for pass/fail in the first place.

Wrong again. You can choose to be conservative when you see a
substantial number of reallocated sectors, and decide that that is
usually evidence of a drive that is either dying or which isnt being
cooled adequately or which isnt getting a decent power supply etc.

And can see from the SMART temp that the
drive needs better cooling, etc etc etc.

In the particular situation being discussed, you can check whether a standard
flouting cable is being used, and try different cable if its within specs etc.

 

[Osiris]

I learned by now, that the SMART software is unequivocal.
Data is now standard most of the time.

typo: now=not

 

[Frank Booth Snr]

Hard Disk inspector reports a 40 Gb (Maxtor 6L040J2) the UltraDMS CRC
error rate (index 199) value in the SMART table is well below its
threshold value.
Should I start worrying ?

strange enough, it is the drive that shows a temp of 37 celsius,
whereas the other maxtor shows 18 celsius.... same mounting position,
same air...

To be frank, Maxtor are not a very reliable make of drive. Many
including myself have had problems at one time or another. Currently my
Dell is consistently giving my Maxtor (40GB) a SMART error on booting
up, whereas Maxtor's own drive test shows a 'pass'. This has been going
on for months now, but no HDD failure as yet. The concensus of opinion
on Dell forums, where Maxtor is the make of drive usually supplied with
the PC, is don't replace it with another Maxtor.

 

[Rod Speed]

typo: now=not

That is just plain wrong, most of the data is standard.

 

[Osiris]

That is just plain wrong, most of the data is standard.

I read this:
http://www.altrixsoft.com/en/support/help/hddinsp/smart attributes.php
and from this:
http://www.almico.com/sfarticle.php?id=2
I cite:

"It should be noted that a lot of things in S.M.A.R.T. specifications
are left up to the device manufacturer. At the lowest level, we might
even know nothing about any attribute as long as values and thresholds
are not exceeded."

and:

"When an attribute value is the same as or lower than its threshold,
the drive is considered to be failing S.M.A.R.T. status."

And I see:
One of my drives gives me twice as many parameters than the other,

 

[kony]

To be frank, Maxtor are not a very reliable make of drive. Many
including myself have had problems at one time or another. Currently my
Dell is consistently giving my Maxtor (40GB) a SMART error on booting
up, whereas Maxtor's own drive test shows a 'pass'. This has been going
on for months now, but no HDD failure as yet. The concensus of opinion
on Dell forums, where Maxtor is the make of drive usually supplied with
the PC, is don't replace it with another Maxtor.

If a large % of Dell users are having this problem it tends
to suggest the system itself. IF Maxtors were dropping like
flies we would see a recall.

Then again, how old is that 40GB drive at this point? No
drive lasts forever, Dell systems tend to have only mediocre
cooling in the first place so if the drive is now ~4+ years
old you may have gotten a fair value out of it.

There was one model of 40GB in particular that was more
problematic than those that came before or after, was one of
(if not the first) generation with 7200 RPM, a Diamondmax
Plus 60.

Which is yours? IIRC these are in order from oldest to
newest, came in 40GB regardless of the capacity of the
specimen pictured.

Plus 60
http://69.36.189.159/usr_1034/maxtor_plus60.jpg

D740X
http://69.36.189.159/usr_1034/maxtor_d740x.jpg

Plus 8
http://69.36.189.159/usr_1034/maxtor_plus8.jpg

These are three distinctly different drives, having one fail
is no indication of the reliability of either of the other
two, nor of any modern Maxtor, nor of any other brand. A
specific problem with a specific model is only indicative of
that model. Thus the importance in clarifying which model
is problematic... because it isn't 40GB Maxtors in general,
I've had over a dozen total of the above 3 models in 40GB
capacity and only saw the Plus60 fail prematurely. I think
systems I've sold still have at least a dozen of them as
primary drives regularly used today.

While my small sample size isn't enough to get an average
failure rate, it does indicate that they're not all prone to
be problematic.

 

[Rod Speed]

I read this:
http://www.altrixsoft.com/en/support/help/hddinsp/smart attributes.php

That one shows that most of the fields are standard.

and from this:
http://www.almico.com/sfarticle.php?id=2
I cite:

"It should be noted that a lot of things in S.M.A.R.T.
specifications are left up to the device manufacturer.

Yes, but in practice most of the SMART fields
that most drives present are pretty universal.

At the lowest level, we might even know nothing about any
attribute as long as values and thresholds are not exceeded."

And that is in fact not that common. Yes there are vendor specific
fields, but they arent generally all that commonly used for the most
important data, essentially because the most important data is pretty
adequately covered by the fields you see on most SMART reports.

and:

"When an attribute value is the same as or lower than its threshold,
the drive is considered to be failing S.M.A.R.T. status."

And I see:
One of my drives gives me twice as many parameters than the other,

Yes, but the most imporant parameters are there for both drives.

 

[Rod Speed]

If a large % of Dell users are having this
problem it tends to suggest the system itself.

Or that the Maxtors dont like that environment.

IF Maxtors were dropping like flies we would see a recall.

Didnt happen with the infamous DeathStars or the Fujitsu MPGs.

Or the Dell laptops which ran the drive right at the limit of what the
hard drive manufacturer allows hard drive temp wise and which got
a hard drive failure rate that showed the problem with that approach.

Then again, how old is that 40GB drive at this point?
No drive lasts forever, Dell systems tend to have only
mediocre cooling in the first place so if the drive is now
~4+ years old you may have gotten a fair value out of it.

Nope. Any decently designed drive can do better than that.

There was one model of 40GB in particular that was more
problematic than those that came before or after, was one of
(if not the first) generation with 7200 RPM, a Diamondmax Plus 60.

Which is yours? IIRC these are in order from oldest to newest,
came in 40GB regardless of the capacity of the specimen pictured.

Plus 60
http://69.36.189.159/usr_1034/maxtor_plus60.jpg

Plus 8
http://69.36.189.159/usr_1034/maxtor_plus8.jpg

These are three distinctly different drives, having one
fail is no indication of the reliability of either of the other
two, nor of any modern Maxtor, nor of any other brand. A
specific problem with a specific model is only indicative of
that model. Thus the importance in clarifying which model
is problematic... because it isn't 40GB Maxtors in general,
I've had over a dozen total of the above 3 models in 40GB
capacity and only saw the Plus60 fail prematurely. I think
systems I've sold still have at least a dozen of them as
primary drives regularly used today.

While my small sample size isn't enough to get an average
failure rate, it does indicate that they're not all prone to
be problematic.

He didnt say they were. He JUST said that IF
it fails, dont replace with with another Maxtor.

 

[paulmd]

To be frank, Maxtor are not a very reliable make of drive. Many
including myself have had problems at one time or another. Currently my
Dell is consistently giving my Maxtor (40GB) a SMART error on booting
up, whereas Maxtor's own drive test shows a 'pass'. This has been going
on for months now, but no HDD failure as yet. The concensus of opinion
on Dell forums, where Maxtor is the make of drive usually supplied with
the PC, is don't replace it with another Maxtor.

You DO have a backup, for WHEN that drive fails, don't you?

 

[kony]

Or that the Maxtors dont like that environment.

Which again, suggests it's the system, not the drive.

Didnt happen with the infamous DeathStars or the Fujitsu MPGs.

.... yet they WERE infamous. So "maybe" not a recall, just a
black flag across the entire industry.... which hasn't
happened.

Or the Dell laptops which ran the drive right at the limit of what the
hard drive manufacturer allows hard drive temp wise and which got
a hard drive failure rate that showed the problem with that approach.

Which is again a system problem, not a drive problem per
se... the drive problem was only consequential.

Nope. Any decently designed drive can do better than that.

"Can", yes. You'd be foolish to rely on one though. Fact
is, your "nope" is completely wrong. At the 4 year mark he
has indeed gotten a fair value out of it. At that point
even if it does still work, it is relatively slow, and the
liability of continuing to use it exceeds it's value.

He didnt say they were. He JUST said that IF
it fails, dont replace with with another Maxtor.

Yes, and as pointed out above, that isn't entirely
reasonable. Maxtor isn't selling the same drive he had
fail, today's maxtor models are as different from his
several year old 40GB drive as any other brand is. If
anything, it's a sign he should avoid Dell, since when all
is said and done, Dell as the integrator has to pick ALL
parts in combinations that work together.

 

[Rod Speed]

Which again, suggests it's the system, not the drive.

Wrong when Maxtors dont like perfectly
viable cases that other drives are fine in.

... yet they WERE infamous. So "maybe" not a recall, just a
black flag across the entire industry.... which hasn't happened.

Yes it has. Tho not as dramatically as with those.

In fact recalls are quite uncommon in this industry.

Which is again a system problem, not a drive problem
per se... the drive problem was only consequential.

That was a comment on your recall stupidity. Didnt happen with those.

"Can", yes.

Does too.

You'd be foolish to rely on one though.

Irrelevant to whether it make any sense to
replace a dying Maxtor with another Maxtor.

Fact is, your "nope" is completely wrong.
Nope.

At the 4 year mark he has indeed gotten a fair value out of it.

Nope, lousy value compared with a
drive from someone else that didnt die.

Death of a hard drive even when fully backed up is a pain in the arse.

At that point even if it does still work, it is relatively slow,
and the liability of continuing to use it exceeds it's value.

You dont know that either. Depends entirely on how its used.

Yes, and as pointed out above, that isn't entirely reasonable.

Wrong, as always. Even if the case doesnt have good
enough drive cooling for Maxtors, it STILL makes no
sense to replace the dead Maxtor with another Maxtor.

Maxtor isn't selling the same drive he had fail,
today's maxtor models are as different from his
several year old 40GB drive as any other brand is.

Wrong again on needing good cooling for a long life.

If anything, it's a sign he should avoid Dell, since when
all is said and done, Dell as the integrator has to pick
ALL parts in combinations that work together.

Irrelevant to whether it makes sense to use other
than a Maxtor if a Maxtor has died in that system.

 

[kony]

Wrong when Maxtors dont like perfectly
viable cases that other drives are fine in.

Nonsense.
They use no particular parts more subject to overheating or
intolerant of elevated temps than anybody else, "in
general". Every now and then the various brands will use
something they later change, as does Maxtor. There is no
constant "maxtor is this or that" because as you cluelessly
keep ignoring, their drives change from generation to
generation just like the others.

Yes it has. Tho not as dramatically as with those.

Nope, only people like yourself that ignore reality and
blame the part instead of the builder. There is one thing
that leads to a false impression of Maxtor though, about
1-2 years ago they had the most aggressive discounts and
rebates such that all the lowest-end system builders would
tend to seek them. As always cost-cutting entails tradeoffs
from a chassis, cooling and power perspective and/or
builders that don't even have the experience to recognize
these tradeoffs nor the basic needs of any and all modern
drives.

Does too.

See next line I wrote below, if you have a statistically
significant sample of drives that old being _regularly_
_used_ , you'd know they do fail more regularly at the 4+
year mark. Does it mean all die on day 1 of year 4? Of
course not, but it remains that the value of the drive has
been appreciated, or rather, at that point depreciated until
it's best to replace it.

Irrelevant to whether it make any sense to
replace a dying Maxtor with another Maxtor.

Plenty of people use them fine. Maybe you should focus more
on what you are or aren't doing, wrongly, causing the
problems. This is a pretty basic troubleshooting process,
when there is more than one variable and the drive is not
seen to exhibit problems, the focus then turns to the other
variables.

Or, we have an entirely different situation as original
stated about the Dells with Maxtors in them. Dell sells,
suppose 20,000 systems with Maxtors and then a percentage
fail. That percentage need not be statistically high rather
than normal compared to any other brand, all that is
necessary to paint a misleading picture is to have a forum
where a larger % of participants had the drive so they're
contrasting a larger sample size and total # of failures,
not percent failure compared to any other make/model in same
environment over same time period.

 

[Rod Speed]

Nonsense.

We'll see...

They use no particular parts more subject to overheating or
intolerant of elevated temps than anybody else, "in general".

Measure the ic surface temps in a situation where
there isnt a lot of airflow over the drives some time
to prove that that claim is just plain wrong.

Every now and then the various brands will use
something they later change, as does Maxtor.
There is no constant "maxtor is this or that"

Corse there is with their own ics.

because as you cluelessly keep ignoring, their drives
change from generation to generation just like the others.

And some things stay from generation to generation too,
most obviously with the idle current and ic temp detail.

Yep.

only people like yourself that ignore reality
and blame the part instead of the builder.

Pity about the external Maxtors where Maxtor
is both the builder and the part manufacturer.

There is one thing that leads to a false impression of
Maxtor though, about 1-2 years ago they had the most
aggressive discounts and rebates such that all the
lowest-end system builders would tend to seek them.
As always cost-cutting entails tradeoffs from a chassis,
cooling and power perspective and/or builders that don't
even have the experience to recognize these tradeoffs
nor the basic needs of any and all modern drives.

Have fun explaining how come other drives survive in those cases fine.

See next line I wrote below, if you have a
statistically significant sample of drives that
old being _regularly_ _used_ , you'd know
they do fail more regularly at the 4+ year mark.

Mindless pig ignorant silly stuff. Most dont have the drives
fail at any age, they get discarded for other reasons.

Does it mean all die on day 1 of year 4? Of course not,
but it remains that the value of the drive has been appreciated,
or rather, at that point depreciated until it's best to replace it.

Doesnt happen with the personal desktop systems being discussed.

Plenty of people use them fine. Maybe you should focus more
on what you are or aren't doing, wrongly, causing the problems.

Or notice that other drives handle that situation fine.

This is a pretty basic troubleshooting process, when there
is more than one variable and the drive is not seen to exhibit
problems, the focus then turns to the other variables.

Even easier to notice that other drives handle that fine.

Or, we have an entirely different situation as original
stated about the Dells with Maxtors in them. Dell sells,
suppose 20,000 systems with Maxtors and then a percentage
fail. That percentage need not be statistically high rather
than normal compared to any other brand, all that is
necessary to paint a misleading picture is to have a forum
where a larger % of participants had the drive so they're
contrasting a larger sample size and total # of failures,
not percent failure compared to any other make/model
in same environment over same time period.

Waffle all you like, child, you're just plain wrong, as always.

 

[Osiris]

Are you sure you know how to use that software?

Usually the issue is when the error rate goes well ABOVE the
threshold value, not well below it.

I don't think so: when values go BELOW threshold, a problem may occur.
As long as they stay above, problems are unlikelier.
they seem to count DOWN...
http://www.almico.com/sfarticle.php?id=2

But maybe you mean to say the same thing...

I hope you do not need to re-interpret your own readings now...