Opened 3 years ago
Last modified 3 years ago
#1580 new enhancement
Add Seagate BUP Fast HDD to drive database (ASMT109x- Fast)
Reported by: | Eaton Zveare | Owned by: | |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | minor | Milestone: | undecided |
Component: | drivedb | Version: | 7.3 |
Keywords: | Cc: |
Description
I have a Seagate BUP Fast 4 TB HDD and smartctl indicates it is not in the drive database as of version 7.3/5319.
Product page: https://www.seagate.com/support/external-hard-drives/portable-hard-drives/backup-plus-fast-hdd/
I have followed the instructions in your FAQ and have attached the test/report.
If you need any other technical details from my drive, I will be happy to provide them.
Attachments (1)
Change History (4)
by , 3 years ago
Attachment: | smartctl-Seagate-BUP-Fast-HDD.txt added |
---|
comment:1 by , 3 years ago
follow-up: 3 comment:2 by , 3 years ago
Summary: | Add Seagate BUP Fast HDD to drive database → Add Seagate BUP Fast HDD to drive database (ASMT109x- Fast) |
---|
This is a new corner case: A RAID firmware which returns ATA SMART attributes. The attribute set does not match any existing drivedb entry. Leaving ticket open as undecided for now.
PS: Please do not set the Milestone in future submissions.
comment:3 by , 3 years ago
Replying to Christian Franke:
This is a new corner case: A RAID firmware which returns ATA SMART attributes. The attribute set does not match any existing drivedb entry. Leaving ticket open as undecided for now.
PS: Please do not set the Milestone in future submissions.
It matches a Samsung HN-M201RAD, as I decided this drive likely was. Here's one I've plucked off the HDD reliability database.
SMART Attributes Data Structure revision number: 16 Vendor Specific SMART Attributes with Thresholds: ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAGS VALUE WORST THRESH FAIL RAW_VALUE 1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate POSR-K 100 100 051 - 4 2 Throughput_Performance -OS--K 252 252 000 - 0 3 Spin_Up_Time PO---K 091 091 025 - 2789 4 Start_Stop_Count -O--CK 100 100 000 - 419 5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct PO--CK 252 252 010 - 0 7 Seek_Error_Rate -OSR-K 252 252 051 - 0 8 Seek_Time_Performance --S--K 252 252 015 - 0 9 Power_On_Hours -O--CK 100 100 000 - 150 10 Spin_Retry_Count -O--CK 252 252 051 - 0 12 Power_Cycle_Count -O--CK 100 100 000 - 144 191 G-Sense_Error_Rate -O---K 252 252 000 - 0 192 Power-Off_Retract_Count -O---K 252 252 000 - 0 194 Temperature_Celsius -O---- 064 053 000 - 30 (Min/Max 16/47) 195 Hardware_ECC_Recovered -O-RCK 100 100 000 - 0 196 Reallocated_Event_Count -O--CK 252 252 000 - 0 197 Current_Pending_Sector -O--CK 252 252 000 - 0 198 Offline_Uncorrectable ----CK 252 252 000 - 0 199 UDMA_CRC_Error_Count -OS-CK 200 200 000 - 0 200 Multi_Zone_Error_Rate -O-R-K 100 100 000 - 1 223 Load_Retry_Count -O--CK 100 100 000 - 2 225 Load_Cycle_Count -O--CK 100 100 000 - 895 241 Total_LBAs_Written -O--CK 100 094 000 - 973032 242 Total_LBAs_Read -O--CK 095 094 000 - 7222125
From investigating it seems this is just a RAID 0 array of two 2 TB drives, most likely the Samsung HN-M201RAD. That would explain the mangled drive ID and Samsung-like attributes.
I'm not the one who makes the final decision on tickets, but as I understand it, the drive database only deals with single drives, not RAID arrays?