SMART reporting and Hard Disk buzzing sound

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vanadium 50
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Disk Hard Sound
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the issues related to a hard disk drive making a buzzing sound and the interpretation of its SMART (Self-Monitoring, Analysis, and Reporting Technology) data. Participants explore the implications of various SMART attributes, the reliability of the drive, and the potential need for replacement or further diagnostics.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Experimental/applied

Main Points Raised

  • One participant reports a buzzing sound from their Toshiba DT01ACA300 drive and expresses confusion over its SMART health report indicating the drive is healthy despite a high number of read errors.
  • Another participant questions whether the original poster is being too paranoid about the drive's condition.
  • Several participants discuss the reliability of internal versus external drives, with some suggesting that internal drives may be less reliable based on personal experiences.
  • Concerns are raised about the Raw_Read_Error_Rate and the number of reallocated sectors, with one participant suggesting that the reported error count may not be meaningful.
  • Participants debate the significance of the SMART attributes, particularly the relationship between the Worst and Thresh values, and whether the drive's performance indicates a need for replacement.
  • One participant shares their own SMART data for comparison, indicating a different state of health for their drive.
  • There is discussion about the potential impact of the drive's enclosure and connection type on performance and error rates.
  • As the discussion progresses, concerns grow regarding the increasing noise from the drive, with participants suggesting urgency in backing up data and considering replacement.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying opinions on the interpretation of SMART data and the implications for the drive's reliability. While some agree that the noise and error rates are concerning, others suggest that the reported values may not be as alarming as they seem. No consensus is reached regarding the drive's condition or the best course of action.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the potential variability in SMART attribute reporting across different manufacturers, the subjective interpretation of what constitutes an acceptable error rate, and the lack of definitive conclusions about the drive's health based on the available data.

  • #31
fresh_42 said:
Thanks. Looks like an internal. They seem to be far less reliable than external ones (my experiences).
An external USB HDD these days usually contains a SATA internal HDD physically. I have a Seagate 4TB drive that used to be in an enclosure. The exact same drive was available at a higher price without the enclosure. Perhaps the USB SATA interface in the enclosure is less demanding than a direct internal SATA connection might be, but that is entirely an interface concern, and has nothing to do with the drive itself.
 
Computer science news on Phys.org
  • #32
Vanadium 50 said:
Another update.

The raw read error rate is not the raw read error rate. :doh: It's actually logarithmic. A value of 73 means that you get an error every 20,000,000 reads. (10^7.3). Failing at 006 means every fourth read fails, and I would not use the word "failing" to describe that. More like "failed".

I just replaced a 320 GB Seagate DB35.3 that was in 24/7 use for 12 years. The only problem was that SMART tests took a (very) long time to finish, but after 12 years I figured I got my money's worth. The replacement isn't exactly new - it is a Seagate 500 GB that Amazon listed as New, but it wasn't new old stock or even new: it had 100 hours on it. And a filesystem. Amazon refunded my money and told me not to bother shipping it back. Can't complain about the service, but I suspect the business model is to sell lightly used drives as new, and do a refund only if someone notices and complains.
Amazon was probably merely passing forward the supplier's assessment of the supplier's product. if you want to critique Amazon regarding the matter, you might consider that the supplier was apparently not adequately pre-vetted, and that refunds aren't always an adequate remedy. I think that Amazon could do better.
 
  • #33
sysprog said:
Amazon was probably merely passing forward the supplier's assessment of the supplier's product.

I agree with that, except for the word "merely". That's Amazon's job.
 
  • #34
sysprog said:
The exact same drive was available at a higher price without the enclosure.

The4re is a whole counter-culture of people who "shuck" drives- buy a USB drive and remove the drive. When I replaced my years-old external for a larger one, I disassembled the unit to take a look inside. The USB-to-SATA connection is tiny, and if it didn't have an LED on it you could be excused for missing it.

The drive vendors have caught on to this, and their moral equivalent of the airlines' "Saturday night stay" is to disable drives if the 3.3V line is present. This is fairly simple to work around, although I have to question whether using a $30 roll of Kapton tape is really the best solution to save $15 on a drive.
 
Last edited:
  • Wow
Likes   Reactions: sysprog
  • #35
Vanadium 50 said:
The4re is a whole counter-culture of people who "shuck" drives- buy a USB drive and remove the drive. When I replaced my years-old external for a larger one, I disassembled the unit to take a look inside. The USB-to-SATA connection is tiny, and if it didn't have an LED on it you could be excused for missing it.

The drive vendors have caught on to this, and their moral equivalent of the aorline's "Saturday night stay" is to disable drives if the 3.3V line is present. This is fairly simple to work around, although I have to question whether using a $30 roll of Kapton tape is really the best solution to save $15 on a drive.
On seeing this from you, I looked it up, and found that you can bypass the 3.3V rail by using a 4-pin Molex-to-SATA adapter to supply power to the HDD.
 
Last edited:
  • #36
Yes, although modern supplies tend to have few Molex connectors. A SATA-to-SATA extension without an orange wire (or with a cut orange wire) will do the same thing.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sysprog
  • #37
Vanadium 50 said:
Yes, although modern supplies tend to have few Molex connectors. A SATA-to-SATA extension without an orange wire (or with a cut orange wire) will do the same thing.
The converter cables/adapters are not too expensive -- this one from Monoprice is $1.29 (USD):

1581280089033.png


I understand that the HDD might require the SATA end and the power supply might not like the MOLEX end, but one way or another, you can still use the HDD outside of the enclosure.
 
Last edited:
  • #38
I don't know the origin of this but here it is:

##\mathtt{\text{If you have a problem and it can't be fixed with duct tape,}}##
##\mathtt{\text{it's 'cause you're not usin' enough duct tape.}}##​
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters
  • #39
One thing to keep in mind is that there are a lot of junk adapters out there that use wire that is too small. Most of them won't catch fire...

SATA is rated at 4.5 amps. Molex is rated at 11 amps. AWG23 would be the minimum gauge wire to power one SATA within spec. Most drives are < 10 W, so some manufacturers use AWG 26 ("probably" safe) or even AWG 28 (hey, there's a safety margin of 2, right?).
 
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: sysprog
  • #40
The twin of the RMA'ed drive back in July is throwing read errors. Grrrr...
 
  • Wow
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters