In message <u0p3bc$qnoo$1@dont-email.me> at Fri, 7 Apr 2023 08:46:36,
Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> writes
[]
>While in Windows, run HDTune benchmark, and look for "bad spots" in the curve.
[]
> https://www.hdtune.com/files/hdtune_255.exe # ten year old free version
[]
>On a hard drive, the outer circumference offers better rates than the
>hub does, which is why the benchmark curve gently declines to half-rate.
>When you see stairsteps in the bench curve, that is "zoned recording",
>and the formatting of the tracks changes from one part of the disk
>to another, on purpose. The stair steps then, are normal, and part of
>design.
[]
I have (what I think is a) fairly conventional HD (500G, in a
second-hand laptop I bought in January), which displays a fairly normal
HDTune curve - flattish up to about 40%, then gentle rolloff to about
half speed: but then hops up again to a high speed for the last 2% or
so! It's consistent - two pairs of runs (I always run it twice) about 3
months apart. (The second run also shows the Access Time - the yellow
"milky way" of spots - along the bottom.)

I'll try to include the last pair but they may not attach or propagate.

In message <u11k8d$2933d$1@dont-email.me> at Mon, 10 Apr 2023 19:24:12,
Dave <dave@cyw.uklinux.net> writes
>On 06/04/2023 16:02, Java Jive wrote:
>
>> Can anyone point to a UK source of reliable, genuinely new,
>>moderately priced non-shingled laptop drives from about 500GB to 1.5TB?
>
>WD model WD10JUCT is available from various suppliers for about £60.
>It's intended for CCTV, DVRs and similar uses where the volume of data
>written is similar to the volume read. OK the ones I have are new-old
>stock dated 2017 - 2019.

I think the ones for TV purposes are "purple", in WD's colour scheme.
Whether they're good (or even overkill), or bad, for general PC use,
I've no idea. (I _suspect_ they're probably good on reliability,
possibly only middling on speed, at least for random access.)

I don't know if they're different when it comes to the magnetic
surfaces, or just the controllers.
--
J. P. Gilliver

In message <u0s8nj$1bera$1@dont-email.me> at Sat, 8 Apr 2023 18:36:51,
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> writes
[]
>Yes, previously, I've rather been put off SSD drives, because ...
[]
>... which between them give a combined failure rate of at least 15%,
>which I would have guessed was higher than that for conventional HDs,
>but now, trying to remember back systematically as best as I can over
>about 3 to 4 decades, actually I recall 5 early failures in at least
>about 25 HDs, or a maximum of around 20%, so for me SSDs certainly have
>performed no worse, and most probably have performed better, than
>conventional HDs, which I wouldn't have expected to be the case without
>systematically trying to recall the details of the HDs that I've had.
>
_My_ nervousness about SSD drives has been the _manner_ of failure - and
that's probably unfairly based on my experience with USB sticks: my
_feeling_ is that solid-state memory devices fail suddenly with no
warning, whereas spinning drives _tend_ to decline gradually. (Not
always I know: I had one where - I think - the head or heads
spot-welded, so obviously the drive suddenly stopped spinning! [It had
been in a laptop with a heating problem. After all the usual methods
failed, I actually opened it in a clean cabinet we had at work, which is
how I know what happened: I freed it, and got 95-98% of the data off,
though condemned it thereafter.]) But on the whole HDs give advanced
indication of failure: make funny noises, or - more often, I think - no
obvious indication (unless you keep running HDTune), just get slower and
slower as the ECC works harder. (I know someone whose XP - or might have
been '9x - machine was eventually taking a quarter hour to boot! It was
fine once it _had_ booted, unless you did something disc-intensive.)
Then there's the bit about SSDs having a write counter, and suddenly
becoming read-only when it passes a certain point - do they still do
that? - and one product line (Intel I think) which became a brick
(neither read _nor_ write, so you couldn't even rescue the data) at that
point.

Obviously, if you back up properly, none of this should matter, but …
(-:
--
J. P. Gilliver

On 5/3/2023 5:33 PM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <u0s8nj$1bera$1@dont-email.me> at Sat, 8 Apr 2023 18:36:51, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> writes
> []
>> Yes, previously, I've rather been put off SSD drives, because ...
> []
>> ... which between them give a combined failure rate of at least 15%, which I would have guessed was higher than that for conventional HDs, but now, trying to remember back systematically as best as I can over about 3 to 4 decades, actually I recall 5 early failures in at least about 25 HDs, or a maximum of around 20%, so for me SSDs certainly have performed no worse, and most probably have performed better, than conventional HDs, which I wouldn't have expected to be the case without systematically trying to recall the details of the HDs that I've had.
>>
> _My_ nervousness about SSD drives has been the _manner_ of failure - and that's probably unfairly based on my experience with USB sticks: my _feeling_ is that solid-state memory devices fail suddenly with no warning, whereas spinning drives _tend_ to decline gradually. (Not always I know: I had one where - I think - the head or heads spot-welded, so obviously the drive suddenly stopped spinning! [It had been in a laptop with a heating problem. After all the usual methods failed, I actually opened it in a clean cabinet we had at work, which is how I know what happened: I freed it, and got 95-98% of the data off, though condemned it thereafter.]) But on the whole HDs give advanced indication of failure: make funny noises, or - more often, I think - no obvious indication (unless you keep running HDTune), just get slower and slower as the ECC works harder. (I know someone whose XP - or might have been '9x - machine was eventually taking a quarter hour to boot! It was fine once it
> _had_ booted, unless you did something disc-intensive.) Then there's the bit about SSDs having a write counter, and suddenly becoming read-only when it passes a certain point - do they still do that? - and one product line (Intel I think) which became a brick (neither read _nor_ write, so you couldn't even rescue the data) at that point.
>
> Obviously, if you back up properly, none of this should matter, but … (-:
SSD drives have three-core ARM processors. There is a whack of
firmware in there, doing maintenance and maintaining "power-safe"
operations (keeping a copy of the translation table). Quite frequently,
when your hand is off the mouse, that three core processor
is doing stuff. The LED does not flash, when the three core processor
is on a rant.
The consumer SSD drives run without using a SuperCap. That's what
"power-safe" means, immediate power failure does not endanger
the "critical data" content. Power failures are also recorded
in SMART, so if you've been mis-treating your SSD, there is
a counter pointing at your misdeed. (I have a SATA to USB
converter that causes the power-failure counter to increment!
Not a builder of confidence, when a flush() was already sent.
This should not be happening. PC SATA SSD operation works fine.)
Early Enterprise drives had a SuperCap and the drive ran off
SuperCap energy, once the primary power feed was observed to
have gone away. This takes some of the pressure off writing
"power-safe" firmware. The SuperCap does not work (necessarily)
at rail voltage, and may use a boost converter to power
circuits on a failure. It only has to run for a second or two.
A few bucks worth of SuperCap would be enough, rather than
one of the $100 ones you could weld with :-)
Some consumer SSD drives, if you examine the PCB, you can see
the pads for the SuperCap (no part installed). The boost chip,
inductor and other bumpf, are also depopulated in the bill of
materials. Shopping on Ebay for a Supercap, isn't enough.
Some SSD drives have DRAM cache, cheaper ones do not. You won't
really find any discussion threads, where there is "evidence
these things exist". Presumably such cache, helps with wear
life and write amplification, best case.
USB sticks ? It's lucky they even have bypass caps.
There is nothing of value in a USB stick. Yes, a dinky
microcontroller is in there. A few USB sticks are "featureful",
but we have to take the word of manufacturer tech support,
and they're not known for information reliability. Most
modern USB sticks, die well before the computed wear life.
Even with no wear leveling, I should be able to write 600
times, and if it fails after 8 writes (dd.exe ==> ISO file),
you have to wonder.
They're just not in the same class.
There is much room for improvement, on USB sticks.
There are a couple sticks with both static and dynamic wear leveling.
But we cannot take some manufacturer tech support dood word for
this, because it could be abject marketing. Only the engineering
department at such a company, would know for sure.
Paul

On 5/3/2023 5:17 PM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <u11k8d$2933d$1@dont-email.me> at Mon, 10 Apr 2023 19:24:12, Dave <dave@cyw.uklinux.net> writes
>> On 06/04/2023 16:02, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>>> Can anyone point to a UK source of reliable, genuinely new, moderately  priced non-shingled laptop drives from about 500GB to 1.5TB?
>>
>> WD model WD10JUCT is available from various suppliers for about £60. It's intended for CCTV, DVRs and similar uses where the volume of data written is similar to the volume read. OK the ones I have are new-old stock dated 2017 - 2019.
>
> I think the ones for TV purposes are "purple", in WD's colour scheme. Whether they're good (or even overkill), or bad, for general PC use, I've no idea. (I _suspect_ they're probably good on reliability, possibly only middling on speed, at least for random access.)
>
> I don't know if they're different when it comes to the magnetic surfaces, or just the controllers.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/surveillance-hard-drive-performance,3831-6.html

The bottom chart has Access Time, and the Access Time on the Purple is slow.
In a non-threaded storage situation (PC desktop), they would likely suck.
They would suck like my Seagate 4TB 5900RPM drive sucked yesterday :-)
Man is that thing slow. Good sequential though. For making backups.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/surveillance-hard-drive-performance,3831-5.html

When you buy the wrong drive, you can always pretend it was for backups.

Paul

On 5/3/2023 4:55 PM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <u0p3bc$qnoo$1@dont-email.me> at Fri, 7 Apr 2023 08:46:36, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> writes
> []
>> While in Windows, run HDTune benchmark, and look for "bad spots" in the curve.
> []
>>   https://www.hdtune.com/files/hdtune_255.exe   # ten year old free version
> []
>> On a hard drive, the outer circumference offers better rates than the
>> hub does, which is why the benchmark curve gently declines to half-rate.
>> When you see stairsteps in the bench curve, that is "zoned recording",
>> and the formatting of the tracks changes from one part of the disk
>> to another, on purpose. The stair steps then, are normal, and part of
>> design.
> []
> I have (what I think is a) fairly conventional HD (500G, in a second-hand laptop I bought in January), which displays a fairly normal HDTune curve - flattish up to about 40%, then gentle rolloff to about half speed: but then hops up again to a high speed for the last 2% or so! It's consistent - two pairs of runs (I always run it twice) about 3 months apart. (The second run also shows the Access Time - the yellow "milky way" of spots - along the bottom.)
>
> I'll try to include the last pair but they may not attach or propagate.

Well, you certainly got your moneys-worth.

It's like something from a Cracker Jack box.

One of your plots, has HDD sequential transfer rate and SSD-like access times.

The piece on the end, *might* be consistent with a short-stroked
drive. A short-stroked drive only uses half of the platter (the
outer half) and the heads never touch the hub. On a short stroked
drive, the transfer curve starts at full rate, but at the end, it
has only declined to about 80% or so. The transfer speed is
mostly consistent over the storage surface.

I am lucky enough, to have acquired just one short stroke drive,
and there is absolutely no notation in the part number, indicating
my Cracker Jack either. I have three drives of that model, two
normal, one is short stroked.

Mine is a a WD 500GB 3.5" drive which is using a 1TB platter inside,
both surfaces are certified, and they only use the first 500GB because
I only paid for a 500GB drive. They make up a batch of 1TB drive,
some become 500GB drives, some stay as 1TB drives. This solves the
problem, of having no platters available any more, to make the
500GB drives.

But that translation, makes no sense. You would not "jump the heads to
the middle of the disk" for the last bit of certified storage on the
drive. What I'm saying is, if your drive was short stroked, the height
of the material on the right, is consistent with a short stroke drive.
But that's just a (weak) attempt to explain where the height would come
from.

But your Access Times of 0.3ms blows the whole charade. Something
like that might happen, via a user adding some sort of Samsung caching
software. Still pretty hard to justify or believe.

There are two anomalies, and I cannot adequately explain either of them.

I'm not saying it's Space Aliens that did it, but it's Space Aliens.

If you were running RAID, had a 500GB hard drive, a 16GB Robson cache,
maybe there would be some way to rig that. (Check and see if your
storage is being run by the Intel RST driver.) Like first, I have to dream
up some materials to make this work. But then the "behavior" part of
the observation, still makes no sense. A Robson cache, I don't think
the curves look like that, and the label for the upper left would
not read the way it does either. There would be an artifact of
the presence of RST for the drive name.

Kudos on your puzzle.

Paul

In message <u2uvs8$1gp0k$1@dont-email.me> at Wed, 3 May 2023 20:56:40,
Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> writes
>On 5/3/2023 4:55 PM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
[]
>> I have (what I think is a) fairly conventional HD (500G, in a
>>second-hand laptop I bought in January), which displays a fairly
>>normal HDTune curve - flattish up to about 40%, then gentle rolloff to
>>about half speed: but then hops up again to a high speed for the last
>>2% or so! It's consistent - two pairs of runs (I always run it twice)
>>about 3 months apart. (The second run also shows the Access Time - the
>>yellow "milky way" of spots - along the bottom.)
>> I'll try to include the last pair but they may not attach or
>>propagate.
>
>Well, you certainly got your moneys-worth.

I'm very pleased with the machine: I paid £80 for it - it's a 15+", with
the 500G and 4G, though I presume the reseller probably inserted those.
(It can take 8G, but I wanted 7-32.) It seems very responsive. The make
[of the laptop] is "stone" (yes, with a lower case S), which I'd never
heard of. The only bad point is this weird loss of connection (but not
for YouTube and Google!) after a few hours, but that wasn't there when I
first got it (in January IIRR), so is something I've done.
>
>It's like something from a Cracker Jack box.
>
>One of your plots, has HDD sequential transfer rate and SSD-like access times.

I nearly always do two runs one after the other, so I'm guessing there's
some sort of buffering - or similar - that the elderly HDTune isn't
aware of: the pair of runs I did also have the very low access time on
the second one, though not _quite_ as drastically so (a _few_ of the
yellow "milky way" dots are still where they "should" be, and it shows
1.4 ms rather than 0.3).
>
>The piece on the end, *might* be consistent with a short-stroked
>drive. A short-stroked drive only uses half of the platter (the
>outer half) and the heads never touch the hub. On a short stroked
>drive, the transfer curve starts at full rate, but at the end, it
>has only declined to about 80% or so. The transfer speed is
>mostly consistent over the storage surface.

But on mine, it does decline to about 50%, or would if the odd jaggy
wasn't there at the end! So I don't _think_ it's short-stroked.
>
>I am lucky enough, to have acquired just one short stroke drive,
>and there is absolutely no notation in the part number, indicating
>my Cracker Jack either. I have three drives of that model, two
>normal, one is short stroked.
>
>Mine is a a WD 500GB 3.5" drive which is using a 1TB platter inside,
>both surfaces are certified, and they only use the first 500GB because
>I only paid for a 500GB drive. They make up a batch of 1TB drive,
>some become 500GB drives, some stay as 1TB drives. This solves the
>problem, of having no platters available any more, to make the
>500GB drives.

I'd have thought they'd make all drives with 1TB platters into 1 TB
drives, with those sold as 500G not being so sold to satisfy a demand
for 500G, but because on testing they found a big fault in the second
half. Rather like - _many_ decades ago, before PCs I think - you used to
sometimes get two versions of memory chips (or it might even have been
EPROMs) of a given capacity, one where one of the "enable" lines had to
be high and one where it had to be low, and it was fairly obvious that
these were chips made to twice the capacity but had had a fault found on
testing in one half or the other. (Obviously for HDs, if the fault was
in the _first_ half they'd scrap them.)
>
>But that translation, makes no sense. You would not "jump the heads to
>the middle of the disk" for the last bit of certified storage on the
>drive. What I'm saying is, if your drive was short stroked, the height
>of the material on the right, is consistent with a short stroke drive.
>But that's just a (weak) attempt to explain where the height would come
>from.
>
>But your Access Times of 0.3ms blows the whole charade. Something
>like that might happen, via a user adding some sort of Samsung caching
>software. Still pretty hard to justify or believe.
>
>There are two anomalies, and I cannot adequately explain either of them.
>
>I'm not saying it's Space Aliens that did it, but it's Space Aliens.

As I say, I suspect some sort of caching (or similar) hardware, either
in the drive or the PC, that is fooling HDTune on the second of two
successive runs. (It takes about 7 minutes, with HDTune left at its
default settings for block size etcetera.)
>
>If you were running RAID, had a 500GB hard drive, a 16GB Robson cache,
>maybe there would be some way to rig that. (Check and see if your
>storage is being run by the Intel RST driver.) Like first, I have to dream
>up some materials to make this work. But then the "behavior" part of
>the observation, still makes no sense. A Robson cache, I don't think
>the curves look like that, and the label for the upper left would
>not read the way it does either. There would be an artifact of
>the presence of RST for the drive name.

Certainly not (knowingly!) running any sort of RAID. (I'm pretty sure
there's only one HD - certainly the flap on the bottom of the machine [I
checked when buying it that there was a suitable access flap - I didn't
want one of these machines where you have to take the whole bottom cover
off to get at e. g. HD or RAM - is the normal size.)
>
>Kudos on your puzzle.

I won't worry about it if it gives me no trouble! And I'm backing up now
I've got my external drive back (unfortunately it was loaned to someone,
to get some of my data back, when the connection funny happened, so I
don't have a backup from before that).
>
> Paul
>
>
John
--
J. P. Gilliver

In message <u2uu1h$1ghd1$1@dont-email.me> at Wed, 3 May 2023 20:25:21,
Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> writes
>On 5/3/2023 5:17 PM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> In message <u11k8d$2933d$1@dont-email.me> at Mon, 10 Apr 2023
>>19:24:12, Dave <dave@cyw.uklinux.net> writes
>>> On 06/04/2023 16:02, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>>> Can anyone point to a UK source of reliable, genuinely new,
>>>>moderately  priced non-shingled laptop drives from about 500GB to 1.5TB?
>>>
>>> WD model WD10JUCT is available from various suppliers for about £60.
>>>It's intended for CCTV, DVRs and similar uses where the volume of
>>>data written is similar to the volume read. OK the ones I have are
>>>new-old stock dated 2017 - 2019.
>> I think the ones for TV purposes are "purple", in WD's colour
>>scheme. Whether they're good (or even overkill), or bad, for general
>>PC use, I've no idea. (I _suspect_ they're probably good on
>>reliability, possibly only middling on speed, at least for random access.)
>> I don't know if they're different when it comes to the magnetic
>>surfaces, or just the controllers.
>
>https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/surveillance-hard-drive-performance
>,3831-6.html
>
>The bottom chart has Access Time, and the Access Time on the Purple is slow.
>In a non-threaded storage situation (PC desktop), they would likely suck.

For access time, yes. Whether they'd be more reliable, I don't know - as
I said, I don't know if the magnetic arrangements - whether shingled,
say, or types of magnetic material - are any different to
non-CCTV/"purple" drives, or whether it's just the controller. (Though
of course that may affect reliability anyway.)

>They would suck like my Seagate 4TB 5900RPM drive sucked yesterday :-)
>Man is that thing slow. Good sequential though. For making backups.
>
>https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/surveillance-hard-drive-performance
>,3831-5.html

I see they're using HDTune 2.55 - that's the ancient free one we use!
>
>When you buy the wrong drive, you can always pretend it was for backups.

(-:
>
> Paul
--
J. P. Gilliver

Please excuse the Linux/Windows crosspost, this is a question about HD
hardware relevant to both OSs!

I have a Dell Precision M6300 that is slowing down really badly, and I
suspect, but have yet to prove, that the HD is failing.

It seems to be getting increasingly difficult to obtain non-shingled
replacement laptop drives. Samsung have sold out to Seagate, and
seemingly now most or all Seagate and Western Digital laptop drives are
SMR ...

Apparently the only non-shingled laptop drives currently made by Seagate
are Exos E, and v. expensive:

https://www.seagate.com/gb/en/products/cmr-smr-list/
https://www.ebuyer.com/store/Storage/cat/Hard-Drive---Internal?a00489=2.5%22&q=exos

Up-to-date information on WD drives seems irresponsibly hard to come by.
After the public backlash around 2020, lists were published then of
which WD drives were SMR ...

https://blog.westerndigital.com/wd-red-nas-drives/

.... but that was 3 years ago and I've not found anything more up to date
and official from the WD site. Also, most independent lists are quite
old, dating from the time the scandal first broke, and/or are compiled
by NAS sites for desktop drives.

Of course, one could buy an older model drive very cheaply, but, even
when they have good ratings, at least some of the stock, even when new
- as in genuinely unused - have been on the shelf for so long that
they are already beyond manufacturer warranty, but, far too frequently,
are suspected items previously returned as faulty being resold, or just
plain second-hand/used and 'refurbished', whatever that may mean for an
item that has 'no user serviceable parts inside':

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Western-Digital-AV-GP-Intellipower-Internal-disk-disc-storage-gigabyte/product-reviews/B002P3KO7O/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_viewpnt_rgt?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews&filterByStar=critical&pageNumber=1

Of course, that is a deliberately biased sample by looking at the
critical reviews, but I find them a useful measure of "What's the worst
that can happen?!"

Can anyone point to a UK source of reliable, genuinely new, moderately
priced non-shingled laptop drives from about 500GB to 1.5TB?

Of course, I could skip the shingles problem by going for an SSD, but
have not really explored this up til now. Experience and thoughts on
that would be welcome too.

TIA.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

In uk.comp.os.linux Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> Can anyone point to a UK source of reliable, genuinely new, moderately
> priced non-shingled laptop drives from about 500GB to 1.5TB?
>
> Of course, I could skip the shingles problem by going for an SSD, but
> have not really explored this up til now. Experience and thoughts on
> that would be welcome too.

TBH there's little point in 2.5" HDD in that size range these days. The
cheapest and nastiest SSDs will perform better than any HDD. Frex:

512GB £23
https://www.ebuyer.com/1535248-patriot-p210-512gb-2-5-sata-iii-ssd-p210s512g25

1TB £40
https://www.ebuyer.com/1535247-patriot-p210-1tb-2-5-sata-iii-ssd-p210s1tb25

2TB £84
https://www.ebuyer.com/1535246-patriot-p210-2tb-2-5-sata-iii-ssd-p210s2tb25

Now I'd not be queuing up to buy those specific drives (I'd research and
likely spend a little more to get something better) but even these will be
night and day better than HDD.

Theo

Java Jive wrote:

> I could skip the shingles problem by going for an SSD, but have not
> really explored this up til now.

I wouldn't fit anything other than an SSD to a laptop, seriously.

On 4/6/23 17:02, Java Jive wrote:
> Please excuse the Linux/Windows crosspost, this is a question about HD
> hardware relevant to both OSs!
>
> I have a Dell Precision M6300 that is slowing down really badly, and I
> suspect, but have yet to prove, that the HD is failing.
>
> Can anyone point to a UK source of reliable, genuinely new, moderately
> priced non-shingled laptop drives from about 500GB to 1.5TB?

I would recommend a SSD, no point in going for a HDD unless you need it
for large scale storage 2TB+

Here is my suggestion:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Samsung-MZ-76E1T0B-EU-Solid-State/dp/B078WST5RK/

If you want to save some bucks, then go with the 500G, but try to avoid
250G SSD, they tend to be slower. I don't recommend QVO as it wears out
faster.

--
//Aho

On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 16:57:42 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
wrote:

>Java Jive wrote:
>
>> I could skip the shingles problem by going for an SSD, but have not
>> really explored this up til now.
>
>I wouldn't fit anything other than an SSD to a laptop, seriously.

+1

On 06/04/2023 17:11, J.O. Aho wrote:
>
> I don't recommend QVO as it wears out faster.

How fast? 5 years, 4 years, 3 years or just 6 months?

For most people if a hard disk lasts for 5 years then they have done
very well indeed. I have a HDD that has lasted for nearly 10 years but I
am not a 24/7 user of the machine. I switch on the machine once in the
evening, check the email in my private account, browse the web to see
what is in the news and that's all about it. It is then time to go to
bed after dinner to wake up in the morning to go to work.

Do you have a link where it says QVO is no better than EVO or is it just
your anecdotal experience of using different versions over the years.

Thank you for the info anyway.

On 06.04.23 19:53, Jim Kelly wrote:
> On 06/04/2023 17:11, J.O. Aho wrote:
>>
>> I don't recommend QVO as it wears out faster.
>
> How fast? 5 years, 4 years, 3 years or just 6 months?
>
> For most people if a hard disk lasts for 5 years then they have done
> very well indeed. I have a HDD that has lasted for nearly 10 years but I
> am not a 24/7 user of the machine. I switch on the machine once in the
> evening, check the email in my private account, browse the web to see
> what is in the news and that's all about it. It is then time to go to
> bed after dinner to wake up in the morning to go to work.
>
> Do you have a link where it says QVO is no better than EVO or is it just
> your anecdotal experience of using different versions over the years.
>
> Thank you for the info anyway.
>
>
>
>
My HD is from 2004, or about 19 years.
80 GB , 25 GB used by XP PRO.
Never had any trouble.
All err info on HD reports OK.
Most data is on drive D.

On 4/6/23 19:53, Jim Kelly wrote:
> On 06/04/2023 17:11, J.O. Aho wrote:
>>
>> I don't recommend QVO as it wears out faster.
>
> How fast? 5 years, 4 years, 3 years or just 6 months?

Time depends on how much you write to the disk, this includes the
resizing of the paging file that windows does quite frequently in the
background. You can look at the product warranty for the 1T evo 600 TBW
(Max 5 years) vs 1T qvo 360 TBW (Max 3 years), that already hints that
Samsung expects the qvo to have shorter lifespan than the evo, sure this
number don't mean that all qvo will just last 3 years + 1 day or 360TB + 1B.

> For most people if a hard disk lasts for 5 years then they have done
> very well indeed. I have a HDD that has lasted for nearly 10 years but I
> am not a 24/7 user of the machine. I switch on the machine once in the
> evening, check the email in my private account, browse the web to see
> what is in the news and that's all about it. It is then time to go to
> bed after dinner to wake up in the morning to go to work.

I'm of the 24/7 school, I don't switch harddrives/ssd that often, but
when I do it's more to get more space and I do rather spend a few extra
bucks to get a better HDD/SSD and I tend to look at Backblaze yearly
report to feel safe with my pick.

> Do you have a link where it says QVO is no better than EVO or is it just
> your anecdotal experience of using different versions over the years.

https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/samsung-qvo-vs-evo-guide/

--
//Aho

On 2023-04-06 17:02, Java Jive wrote:
> Please excuse the Linux/Windows crosspost, this is a question about HD
> hardware relevant to both OSs!
>
> I have a Dell Precision M6300 that is slowing down really badly, and I
> suspect, but have yet to prove, that the HD is failing.

At least in Linux, this is easy to check. Assuming the drive is
/dev/sda, do, as root:

smartctl -a /dev/sda

Check these two lines:

ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE
UPDATED WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE

197 Current_Pending_Sector 0x0012 100 100 000 Old_age Always
- 0
198 Offline_Uncorrectable 0x0010 100 100 000 Old_age
Offline - 0

If the last column is not zero, you have a problem. Then look at this
other line:

5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct 0x0033 100 100 010 Pre-fail
Always - 0

If the two "100" are not 100, that's bad, the disk is dying. Replace it.

>
> It seems to be getting increasingly difficult to obtain non-shingled
> replacement laptop drives.  Samsung have sold out to Seagate, and
> seemingly now most or all Seagate and Western Digital laptop drives are
> SMR ...
>
> Apparently the only non-shingled laptop drives currently made by Seagate
> are Exos E, and v. expensive:
>
> https://www.seagate.com/gb/en/products/cmr-smr-list/
> https://www.ebuyer.com/store/Storage/cat/Hard-Drive---Internal?a00489=2.5%22&q=exos
>
> Up-to-date information on WD drives seems irresponsibly hard to come by.
>  After the public backlash around 2020, lists were published then of
> which WD drives were SMR ...
>
> https://blog.westerndigital.com/wd-red-nas-drives/
>
> ... but that was 3 years ago and I've not found anything more up to date
> and official from the WD site.  Also, most independent lists are quite
> old, dating from the time the scandal first broke, and/or are compiled
> by NAS sites for desktop drives.
>
> Of course, one could buy an older model drive very cheaply, but, even
> when they have good ratings, at least some of the stock, even when new
> -  as in genuinely unused  -  have been on the shelf for so long that
> they are already beyond manufacturer warranty, but, far too frequently,
> are suspected items previously returned as faulty being resold, or just
> plain second-hand/used and 'refurbished', whatever that may mean for an
> item that has 'no user serviceable parts inside':
>
> https://www.amazon.co.uk/Western-Digital-AV-GP-Intellipower-Internal-disk-disc-storage-gigabyte/product-reviews/B002P3KO7O/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_viewpnt_rgt?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews&filterByStar=critical&pageNumber=1
>
> Of course, that is a deliberately biased sample by looking at the
> critical reviews, but I find them a useful measure of "What's the worst
> that can happen?!"
>
> Can anyone point to a UK source of reliable, genuinely new, moderately
> priced non-shingled laptop drives from about 500GB to 1.5TB?
>
> Of course, I could skip the shingles problem by going for an SSD, but
> have not really explored this up til now.  Experience and thoughts on
> that would be welcome too.
Go for an SSD, don't hesitate. Till 1TB at least the prices are reasonable.

I saw some laptops that had both SSD and rotating rust.

SSDs are actually more robust than traditional disks, they don't mind
vibrations, and are nicer on the battery.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On Thu, 06 Apr 2023 17:22:03 -0400, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> SSDs are actually more robust than traditional disks, they don't mind
> vibrations, and are nicer on the battery.

I did have a problem with one laptop when I tried replacing it's hard drive
with an ssd. Massive overheating during large writes (linux install) forcing
a system shutdown part way through. Put the old hard drive back in and it was
fine.

I ended up adding that ssd drive in my desktop system with a fan.
hddtemp for it shows ...
/dev/sdd: INTEL SSDSC2BW240A4: no sensor

It does get very hot to the touch even with the fan.

Other laptops I've put other ssd drives have been fine.

Regards, Dave Hodgins

On 2023-04-07 00:10, David W. Hodgins wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Apr 2023 17:22:03 -0400, Carlos E.R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> SSDs are actually more robust than traditional disks, they don't mind
>> vibrations, and are nicer on the battery.
>
> I did have a problem with one laptop when I tried replacing it's hard drive
> with an ssd. Massive overheating during large writes (linux install)
> forcing
> a system shutdown part way through. Put the old hard drive back in and
> it was
> fine.
>
> I ended up adding that ssd drive in my desktop system with a fan.
> hddtemp for it shows ...
> /dev/sdd: INTEL SSDSC2BW240A4:  no sensor
>
> It does get very hot to the touch even with the fan.
>
> Other laptops I've put other ssd drives have been fine.
Yes, I suppose there were bad designs while the technology matured.

I replaced with an ssd the hard disk in my first laptop, a bit clunky
item for nowdays, and the thing boots when it wants. Sometimes it boots,
sometimes the computer thinks there is no disk. ctrl-alt-del and try
again. But absolutely no problems once booted.

I thought that maybe there is a faulty contact, maybe I should open the
laptop and reseat the cables. I have been postponing that for years and
years. Some day. Or maybe not. :-)

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 23:22:03 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> On 2023-04-06 17:02, Java Jive wrote:
>> Please excuse the Linux/Windows crosspost, this is a question about HD
>> hardware relevant to both OSs!
>>
>> I have a Dell Precision M6300 that is slowing down really badly, and I
>> suspect, but have yet to prove, that the HD is failing.
>
> At least in Linux, this is easy to check. Assuming the drive is
> /dev/sda, do, as root:
>
> smartctl -a /dev/sda
>
> Check these two lines:
>
> ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE UPDATED
> WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE
>
I like to keep an eye on disk ages and potential problems, so I have a
weekly cronjob that runs smartctl and emails me the report it produces.

I've found that spinning rust tends to fail after an accumulated running
time of around 50,000 hours +/-5,000

I usually fit 500GB WD Blue drives, which don't use shingling or other
similar tech. I've had no problems with either 2.5" or 3.5" drives for a
long time now.

I'm also happy with the Sanyo 120GB SSD I've fitted in a Lenovo R61i when
its original Fujitsu hard disk died.

This machine's disk access hardware can't handle disks bigger than 200GB,
and by the time its original 160 GB HDD died you couldn't buy any HDDs
smaller than 320GB, so fitting a 120GB SSD was the obvious answer. It
certainly goes like the clappers with this installed. It also produces
weekly smartctl reports: the most notable difference, apart from a general
speedup compared with spinning rust, is that the active hours per week
figure is a lot lower than for spinning rust, probably because an SSD is
instant on/instant off while an HDD will include spinup, spindown and
idle_but_spunup time in its accumulated active runtime.

So far, that's my only experience with an SSD, but my ancient Dual Athlon
house server recently died horribly and is being replaced by a new box
containing a 1TB WD SSD, so I'll be interested to see how this storage
works out. I'll keep the weekly smartctl reports comming on its
accumulated running time. .

--

Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

On 06/04/2023 16:02, Java Jive wrote:
>
> Please excuse the Linux/Windows crosspost, this is a question about HD
> hardware relevant to both OSs!

Thanks for all the replies, all of which I've read and noted.

> I have a Dell Precision M6300 that is slowing down really badly, and I
> suspect, but have yet to prove, that the HD is failing.

This afternoon I got around to testing the HD with CrystalMark, which
gives it a Health Status of Good, though I wonder at what the columns
actually mean, in particular:

ID Attribute Name Current Worst Threshold Raw Values
05 Reallocated Sectors Count 100 100 50 All zeros
0A Spin Retry Count 253 100 30 All zeros

The full log is appended.

So next I ran MemTest on it - the PC has 4GB RAM and the CPU is an
Intel Core2 Duo running at 2.60GHz, and the test took about 3 hours 55
minutes to do a pass, which definitely seems very slow to me, but no
memory errors either.

However, I did notice that the two sticks were different makes, so may
not have been well matched, but, if that was an issue, why it had only
recently become so, I couldn't fathom. Nevertheless, as I still had 4GB
from P1 (see below) which I upgraded to 8GB, I swapped that in so that
the RAM modules are now guaranteed to be properly matched, but it's made
no difference.

> Of course, I could skip the shingles problem by going for an SSD, but
> have not really explored this up til now.  Experience and thoughts on
> that would be welcome too.

Yes, the general opinion does seem to be that this is the way to go.

The first thing though, now that CrystalMark has spoken somewhat
unexpectedly, is to find out WTF is actually making the PC so slow. An
obvious thing to look for is malware, but I don't it's likely to be
that, as it's *MUCH* slower than 2 other Dell Precision M6300s at even
beginning to load the GRUB menu or OS, which is why I felt certain that
the HD was most likely to be responsible. In the table below, the
problem PC is P2, and while it displays the Dell POST screen for about
the same time as the other two, there is then a long and variable pause
before it displays the GRUB menu, and thereafter the WinXP boot is also
slower (both GRUB menus timeout after 3s).

PC Time to: GRUB/OS Load Win Logon
P1 8GB @ 2.8GHz - Dual-boot Ubuntu 18 & W7: 0:12 0:24 later
P2 4GB @ 2.6GHz - Dual-boot Ubuntu 18 & XP: 0:31-1:00+ 0:19+ later
P3 4GB @ 2.2GHz - XP: 0:08 0:06 later

I've compared the setup options between P1 & P2, and they are the same
in all the things they can be, in particular both are set to Minimal
POST checks.

Anyone got any comments to make about this?

Appendix - CrystalMark log:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CrystalDiskInfo 8.17.14 (C) 2008-2022 hiyohiyo
Crystal Dew World:
https://crystalmark.info/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

OS : Windows XP Professional SP3 [5.1 Build 2600] (x86)
Date : 2023/04/06 23:14:12

-- Controller Map ----------------------------------------------------------
- Ricoh SD/MMC Host Controller [ATA]
- Ricoh Memory Stick Controller [ATA]
- Ricoh xD-Picture Card Controller [ATA]
+ Intel(R) ICH8M Ultra ATA Storage Controllers - 2850 [ATA]
- Primary IDE Channel (0)
+ Intel(R) ICH8M 3 port Serial ATA Storage Controller - 2828 [ATA]
+ Primary IDE Channel (0)
- TOSHIBA MQ01ABD050V

-- Disk List ---------------------------------------------------------------
(01) TOSHIBA MQ01ABD050V : 500.1 GB [0/1/0, pd1]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(01) TOSHIBA MQ01ABD050V
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model : TOSHIBA MQ01ABD050V
Firmware : AX0G1Q
Serial Number : 43PDW013T
Disk Size : 500.1 GB (8.4/137.4/500.1/500.1)
Buffer Size : 16384 KB
Queue Depth : 32
# of Sectors : 976773168
Rotation Rate : 5400 RPM
Interface : Serial ATA
Major Version : ATA8-ACS
Minor Version : ----
Transfer Mode : SATA/300 | SATA/300
Power On Hours : 19576 hours
Power On Count : 63735 count
Temperature : 34 C (93 F)
Health Status : Good
Features : S.M.A.R.T., APM, NCQ, GPL
APM Level : 00FEh [OFF]
AAM Level : ----
Drive Letter : C: D:

-- S.M.A.R.T. --------------------------------------------------------------
ID Cur Wor Thr RawValues(6) Attribute Name
01 100 100 _50 000000000000 Read Error Rate
02 100 100 _50 000000000000 Throughput Performance
03 100 100 __1 000000000435 Spin-Up Time
04 100 100 __0 0000000101FA Start/Stop Count
05 100 100 _50 000000000000 Reallocated Sectors Count
07 100 100 _50 000000000000 Seek Error Rate
08 100 100 _50 000000000000 Seek Time Performance
09 _52 _52 __0 000000004C78 Power-On Hours
0A 253 100 _30 000000000000 Spin Retry Count
0C 100 100 __0 00000000F8F7 Power Cycle Count
BF 100 100 __0 00000000003A G-Sense Error Rate
C0 __1 __1 __0 00000000EB0F Power-off Retract Count
C1 _94 _94 __0 00000001022B Load/Unload Cycle Count
C2 100 100 __0 003300070022 Temperature
C4 100 100 __0 000000000000 Reallocation Event Count
C5 100 100 __0 000000000000 Current Pending Sector Count
C6 100 100 __0 000000000000 Uncorrectable Sector Count
C7 200 200 __0 000000000000 UltraDMA CRC Error Count
DC 100 100 __0 000000000000 Disk Shift
DE _52 _52 __0 000000004B85 Loaded Hours
DF 100 100 __0 000000000000 Load/Unload Retry Count
E0 100 100 __0 000000000000 Load Friction
E2 100 100 __0 0000000000B6 Load 'In'-time
F0 100 100 __1 000000000000 Head Flying Hours

-- IDENTIFY_DEVICE ---------------------------------------------------------
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
000: 0040 3FFF C837 0010 0000 0000 003F 0000 0000 0000
010: 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2034 3350 4457 3031 3354
020: 0000 8000 0000 4158 3047 3151 2020 544F 5348 4942
030: 4120 4D51 3031 4142 4430 3530 5620 2020 2020 2020
040: 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 8010 0000 2F00
050: 4000 0200 0000 0007 3FFF 0010 003F FC10 00FB 0110
060: FFFF 0FFF 0007 0007 0003 0078 0078 0078 0078 0000
070: 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 001F 0F06 0004 004C 0040
080: 01F8 0000 746B 7D69 6163 7469 BC41 6163 203F 0038
090: 0038 00FE FFFE 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000
100: 6030 3A38 0000 0000 0000 0000 6003 0000 5000 0394
110: B4A8 6F9A 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 401C
120: 401C 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0029 0000
130: 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000
140: 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000
150: 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000
160: 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0003 0000
170: 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000
180: 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000
190: 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000
200: 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 003D 0000 0000 4000
210: 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 1518 0000 0000
220: 0000 0000 101F 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000
230: 0000 0000 0000 0000 0001 0080 0000 0000 0000 0000
240: 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000
250: 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 E1A5

-- SMART_READ_DATA ---------------------------------------------------------
+0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +A +B +C +D +E +F
000: 10 00 01 0B 00 64 64 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 02 05
010: 00 64 64 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 03 27 00 64 64 35
020: 04 00 00 00 00 00 04 32 00 64 64 FA 01 01 00 00
030: 00 00 05 33 00 64 64 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 07 0B
040: 00 64 64 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 08 05 00 64 64 00
050: 00 00 00 00 00 00 09 32 00 34 34 78 4C 00 00 00
060: 00 00 0A 33 00 FD 64 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0C 32
070: 00 64 64 F7 F8 00 00 00 00 00 BF 32 00 64 64 3A
080: 00 00 00 00 00 00 C0 32 00 01 01 0F EB 00 00 00
090: 00 00 C1 32 00 5E 5E 2B 02 01 00 00 00 00 C2 22
0A0: 00 64 64 22 00 07 00 33 00 00 C4 32 00 64 64 00
0B0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 C5 32 00 64 64 00 00 00 00 00
0C0: 00 00 C6 30 00 64 64 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 C7 32
0D0: 00 C8 C8 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 DC 02 00 64 64 00
0E0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 DE 32 00 34 34 85 4B 00 00 00
0F0: 00 00 DF 32 00 64 64 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 E0 22
100: 00 64 64 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 E2 26 00 64 64 B6
110: 00 00 00 00 00 00 F0 01 00 64 64 00 00 00 00 00
120: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
130: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
140: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
150: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
160: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 82 00 78 00 00 5B
170: 03 00 01 00 02 78 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
180: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
190: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
1A0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
1B0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
1C0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
1D0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
1E0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
1F0: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 52

On 2023-04-07 01:02, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 23:22:03 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
>> On 2023-04-06 17:02, Java Jive wrote:
>>> Please excuse the Linux/Windows crosspost, this is a question about HD
>>> hardware relevant to both OSs!
>>>
>>> I have a Dell Precision M6300 that is slowing down really badly, and I
>>> suspect, but have yet to prove, that the HD is failing.
>>
>> At least in Linux, this is easy to check. Assuming the drive is
>> /dev/sda, do, as root:
>>
>> smartctl -a /dev/sda
>>
>> Check these two lines:
>>
>> ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE UPDATED
>> WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE
>>
> I like to keep an eye on disk ages and potential problems, so I have a
> weekly cronjob that runs smartctl and emails me the report it produces.

You could simply run the daemon, smartd.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 07/04/2023 00:17, Java Jive wrote:
>
> PC                                 Time to:  GRUB/OS Load  Win Logon
> P1 8GB @ 2.8GHz - Dual-boot Ubuntu 18 & W7:  0:12          0:24 later
> P2 4GB @ 2.6GHz - Dual-boot Ubuntu 18 & XP:  0:31-1:00+    0:19+ later
> P3 4GB @ 2.2GHz - XP:                        0:08          0:06 later

Perhaps I should have explained that these are times for each PC to get
to the logon screen from a state of hibernation, in other words, from
no power being consumed through reloading the previous state to
displaying the logon screen.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 2023-04-07 01:17, Java Jive wrote:
> On 06/04/2023 16:02, Java Jive wrote:

....

> -- Disk List
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>  (01) TOSHIBA MQ01ABD050V : 500.1 GB [0/1/0, pd1]
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  (01) TOSHIBA MQ01ABD050V
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>            Model : TOSHIBA MQ01ABD050V
>         Firmware : AX0G1Q
>    Serial Number : 43PDW013T
>        Disk Size : 500.1 GB (8.4/137.4/500.1/500.1)
>      Buffer Size : 16384 KB
>      Queue Depth : 32
>     # of Sectors : 976773168
>    Rotation Rate : 5400 RPM
>        Interface : Serial ATA
>    Major Version : ATA8-ACS
>    Minor Version : ----
>    Transfer Mode : SATA/300 | SATA/300
>   Power On Hours : 19576 hours
>   Power On Count : 63735 count
>      Temperature : 34 C (93 F)
>    Health Status : Good
>         Features : S.M.A.R.T., APM, NCQ, GPL
>        APM Level : 00FEh [OFF]
>        AAM Level : ----
>     Drive Letter : C: D:
>
> -- S.M.A.R.T.
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ID Cur Wor Thr RawValues(6) Attribute Name
> 01 100 100 _50 000000000000 Read Error Rate
> 02 100 100 _50 000000000000 Throughput Performance
> 03 100 100 __1 000000000435 Spin-Up Time
> 04 100 100 __0 0000000101FA Start/Stop Count
> 05 100 100 _50 000000000000 Reallocated Sectors Count
> 07 100 100 _50 000000000000 Seek Error Rate
> 08 100 100 _50 000000000000 Seek Time Performance
> 09 _52 _52 __0 000000004C78 Power-On Hours
> 0A 253 100 _30 000000000000 Spin Retry Count
> 0C 100 100 __0 00000000F8F7 Power Cycle Count
> BF 100 100 __0 00000000003A G-Sense Error Rate
> C0 __1 __1 __0 00000000EB0F Power-off Retract Count
> C1 _94 _94 __0 00000001022B Load/Unload Cycle Count
> C2 100 100 __0 003300070022 Temperature
> C4 100 100 __0 000000000000 Reallocation Event Count
> C5 100 100 __0 000000000000 Current Pending Sector Count
> C6 100 100 __0 000000000000 Uncorrectable Sector Count
> C7 200 200 __0 000000000000 UltraDMA CRC Error Count
> DC 100 100 __0 000000000000 Disk Shift
> DE _52 _52 __0 000000004B85 Loaded Hours
> DF 100 100 __0 000000000000 Load/Unload Retry Count
> E0 100 100 __0 000000000000 Load Friction
> E2 100 100 __0 0000000000B6 Load 'In'-time
> F0 100 100 __1 000000000000 Head Flying Hours

I don't see anything wrong in this disk.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 23:22:03 +0200
"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> On 2023-04-06 17:02, Java Jive wrote:
> > Please excuse the Linux/Windows crosspost, this is a question about
> > HD hardware relevant to both OSs!
> >
> > I have a Dell Precision M6300 that is slowing down really badly,
> > and I suspect, but have yet to prove, that the HD is failing.
>
> At least in Linux, this is easy to check. Assuming the drive is
> /dev/sda, do, as root:
>
> smartctl -a /dev/sda
>
> Check these two lines:
>
> ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE
> UPDATED WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE
>
>
> 197 Current_Pending_Sector 0x0012 100 100 000 Old_age
> Always
> - 0
> 198 Offline_Uncorrectable 0x0010 100 100 000 Old_age
> Offline - 0
>
>
> If the last column is not zero, you have a problem. Then look at this
> other line:
>
> 5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct 0x0033 100 100 010 Pre-fail
> Always - 0
>
> If the two "100" are not 100, that's bad, the disk is dying. Replace
> it.
>
> >
> > It seems to be getting increasingly difficult to obtain
> > non-shingled replacement laptop drives.  Samsung have sold out to
> > Seagate, and seemingly now most or all Seagate and Western Digital
> > laptop drives are SMR ...
> >
> > Apparently the only non-shingled laptop drives currently made by
> > Seagate are Exos E, and v. expensive:
> >
> > https://www.seagate.com/gb/en/products/cmr-smr-list/
> > https://www.ebuyer.com/store/Storage/cat/Hard-Drive---Internal?a00489=2.5%22&q=exos
> >
> > Up-to-date information on WD drives seems irresponsibly hard to
> > come by. After the public backlash around 2020, lists were
> > published then of which WD drives were SMR ...
> >
> > https://blog.westerndigital.com/wd-red-nas-drives/
> >
> > ... but that was 3 years ago and I've not found anything more up to
> > date and official from the WD site.  Also, most independent lists
> > are quite old, dating from the time the scandal first broke, and/or
> > are compiled by NAS sites for desktop drives.
> >
> > Of course, one could buy an older model drive very cheaply, but,
> > even when they have good ratings, at least some of the stock, even
> > when new
> > -  as in genuinely unused  -  have been on the shelf for so long
> > that they are already beyond manufacturer warranty, but, far too
> > frequently, are suspected items previously returned as faulty being
> > resold, or just plain second-hand/used and 'refurbished', whatever
> > that may mean for an item that has 'no user serviceable parts
> > inside':
> >
> > https://www.amazon.co.uk/Western-Digital-AV-GP-Intellipower-Internal-disk-disc-storage-gigabyte/product-reviews/B002P3KO7O/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_viewpnt_rgt?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews&filterByStar=critical&pageNumber=1
> >
> > Of course, that is a deliberately biased sample by looking at the
> > critical reviews, but I find them a useful measure of "What's the
> > worst that can happen?!"
> >
> > Can anyone point to a UK source of reliable, genuinely new,
> > moderately priced non-shingled laptop drives from about 500GB to
> > 1.5TB?
> >
> > Of course, I could skip the shingles problem by going for an SSD,
> > but have not really explored this up til now.  Experience and
> > thoughts on that would be welcome too.
> Go for an SSD, don't hesitate. Till 1TB at least the prices are
> reasonable.
>
> I saw some laptops that had both SSD and rotating rust.
>
>
> SSDs are actually more robust than traditional disks, they don't mind
> vibrations, and are nicer on the battery.
>
>
I tried this on my laptop, which has no performance problems that I
know of, and this is the result:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SMART Attributes Data Structure revision number: 1
Vendor Specific SMART Attributes with Thresholds:
ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE UPDATED WHEN_FAILED
RAW_VALUE
1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 0x0032 100 100 050 Old_age Always 0
5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct 0x0032 100 100 050 Old_age Always 0

(multiple similar lines), then finally:
245 Unknown_Attribute 0x0032 100 100 050 Old_age Always 101664

SMART Error Log Version: 1
No Errors Logged

SMART Self-test log structure revision number 1
Num Test_Description Status Remaining
LifeTime(hours) LBA_of_first_error # 1 Short offline Completed
without error 00% 993 -

Selective Self-tests/Logging not supported
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

... which does not match your '000' requirement for the last of the three
columns.

This is on a Linux system, BTW.
--
Davey