Hi,

 

I recently replaced a supposed failing drive (see topic Drive disabled, No smart report logged). I replaced with a larger WD40EDAZ drive and followed the Unraid FAQs for replacing a data drive. This was successful, until my server performed the scheduled partity check and reported 327088 errors.

 

As a result I checked syslog and discovered the new drive (ata5) reporting errors

ata5.00: exception Emask 0x50 SAct 0x60 SErr 0x4890800 action 0xe frozen
ata5.00: irq_stat 0x08400040, interface fatal error, connection status changed
ata5: SError: { HostInt PHYRdyChg 10B8B LinkSeq DevExch }
ata5.00: failed command: WRITE FPDMA QUEUED
ata5.00: cmd 61/40:28:a8:3b:91/05:00:0d:00:00/40 tag 5 ncq dma 688128 out
res 40/00:30:e8:40:91/00:00:0d:00:00/40 Emask 0x50 (ATA bus error)
ata5.00: status: { DRDY }
ata5: hard resetting link
ata5: link is slow to respond, please be patient (ready=0)
ata5: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus 113 SControl 310)
ACPI BIOS Error (bug): Could not resolve [\_SB.PCI0.SAT0.SPT4._GTF.DSSP], AE_NOT_FOUND (20180810/psargs-330)
ACPI Error: Method parse/execution failed \_SB.PCI0.SAT0.SPT4._GTF, AE_NOT_FOUND (20180810/psparse-514)

 

I have since replaced the SATA cable and rebooted with no issues, however as soon as I restart the parity check it spits out the same errors. I replaced for yet another cable but still have the same problem.

 

I'm not sure if the drive is the problem seeing as it is new. What is the problem here?

liamdesktop-diagnostics-20210124-2309.zip

SMART looks OK, but if new cables don't help try with a different disk.

 

P.S. unrelated but that's an SMR disk, could have performance degradation. 

Would SMR drives have performance degradation to the point these errors would occur. I'm thinking about this as there are also bios related errors associated to this which may be due to the behaviour of the drive communication to the mobo.

 

I've ordered a WD40EFRX which is CMR, so hopefully this will solve this problem.

Just now, 01cooperl said:

Would SMR drives have performance degradation to the point these errors would occur.

No, at least it shouldn't, there are some known firmware issues that can result in actual errors but AFAIK only with ZFS in a raid config.