Marius1085 Posted May 19, 2020 Share Posted May 19, 2020 Hey, I just stumbled upon the S.M.A.R.T. data of one of my HDDs and I am starting to worry if it could fail soon. It's a 8TB Seagate IronWolf NAS drive and the data that's worrying is the LBAs written and LBAs read aswell as Hardware ECC recovered. The drive is only 25 days old but way over what Seagate recommends. Seagate says on their site that this drive has a workload of 180TB/year. My questions are: Are the LBA datas wrong or should I worry? If so, how can I reduce the write and read? Can hardware ECC recovered be corrected by using ECC ram? Am I voiding my warranty by reading and writing more than Seagate recommends? I'm attaching my S.M.A.R.T. report data from DiskSpeed docker. Thank you for your help Quote Link to comment
JorgeB Posted May 19, 2020 Share Posted May 19, 2020 19 minutes ago, Marius1085 said: Hardware ECC recovered You can ignore that. As for the total reads/writes they seems excessive, I suspect diskspeed is misinterpreting the SMART data, please post the SMART report using the GUI. Quote Link to comment
Marius1085 Posted May 19, 2020 Author Share Posted May 19, 2020 Yeah sure. Here is the S.M.A.R.T. report from the GUI. Let me know if you need anything else. hdd.txt Quote Link to comment
Solution JorgeB Posted May 19, 2020 Solution Share Posted May 19, 2020 Like suspected it's showing the wrong values: 241 Total_LBAs_Written ------ 100 253 000 - 16039330064 242 Total_LBAs_Read ------ 100 253 000 - 33785959168 Logical sector size is 512 bytes, total LBAs written is the raw number x the logical sector size, so total writes are currently 8.2TB, diskspeed is multiplying by the physical sector size (4096 bytes), so you need to divide by 8 to get correct values. Quote Link to comment
Marius1085 Posted May 20, 2020 Author Share Posted May 20, 2020 Thank you very much. Makes total sense that LBA means the logical sector size but I wasnt quite sure. The usage now seems realistic. Quote Link to comment
JorgeB Posted May 20, 2020 Share Posted May 20, 2020 Just going to ping @jbartlettso we can take a look at the calculations. Quote Link to comment
jbartlett Posted May 21, 2020 Share Posted May 21, 2020 It is indeed multiplying the value by the Sector Size instead of the Logical Sector Size in error. I've made a correction for the next DiskSpeed update. 1 Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.