November 27, 201510 yr Not sure if the devs picked this up. Seems to be an issue popping up with Seagates (again). http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=44068.0 http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=39526.msg422471#msg422471 http://lime-technology.com/forum/index.php?topic=44262.0 Both my known good ST4000VM000 drives are giving timeout errors, other WD and HGST drives on the same (and different) controllers are fine.
December 16, 201510 yr It's not an issue. Just Seagate reports the attribute differently than wd. Just disable monitoring of that attribute for those drives
December 16, 201510 yr It's not an issue. Just Seagate reports the attribute differently than wd. Just disable monitoring of that attribute for those drives The issue is that it's not an issue but being treated as one. People not in the know (many users) don't know that it's not actually an issue and can be safely ignored. There might need to be more logic about the way smart values are captured and reported to prevent confusion.
December 16, 201510 yr It's not an issue. Just Seagate reports the attribute differently than wd. Just disable monitoring of that attribute for those drives The issue is that it's not an issue but being treated as one. People not in the know (many users) don't know that it's not actually an issue and can be safely ignored. There might need to be more logic about the way smart values are captured and reported to prevent confusion. There's nothing LT can do about this one though. Seagate drives report it differently, therefore will need to contact Seagate and see if they'll change...
December 16, 201510 yr It's not an issue. Just Seagate reports the attribute differently than wd. Just disable monitoring of that attribute for those drives The issue is that it's not an issue but being treated as one. People not in the know (many users) don't know that it's not actually an issue and can be safely ignored. There might need to be more logic about the way smart values are captured and reported to prevent confusion. There's nothing LT can do about this one though. Seagate drives report it differently, therefore will need to contact Seagate and see if they'll change... I realize that this is an issue with Seagate, and I realize they aren't going to fix it. So why not have some logic in the smart notification code that ignores 188 if it's from a Seagate drive? Is that adding more issues?
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.