SMART results - are these drives bad?

[Robert Trevellyan]

four out of the six

:(

 

[Yatti420]

White label drives? Ohhhh I can see how this is going to end.. Get rid of them folks..

I don't like using drives that storage companies etc have ditched.. I also wonder who is re-branding them (http://www.newegg.ca/goHardDrive-Canada).. It's really really bad if they do that.. Aka drives that wont even pass a manufacturers refurbished program. They aren't trustworthy at all - Probably not even for long term archive..

Danb should remove the other posts regarding these drives. They are just bad..

Just searched WL up here.. Sure Amazon has them up here.. Almost 80$ more then a new drive.. http://www.newegg.ca/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIAA683S16022&cm_re=6TB-_-9SIAA683S16022-_-Product

WL is a cash grab by the elite folks..

 

[danb35]

Somewhat surprisingly, the pool's still in perfect health. I expect this vdev is relatively empty, which would help. I've asked the vendor if they'll do an advance exchange on the drives, but I think I may order replacement (name brand) drives anyway, and burn in any replacements I get from the vendor and keep them as spares. Seagate NAS 6 TB drives are $225 each at Newegg right now with a promo code, which doesn't sound too bad.

 

[danb35]

Danb should remove the other posts regarding these drives.

No, I don't think so, particularly since this is the only thread I remember discussing them in. I haven't recommended them, and certainly am not likely to based on my experience; I'll let other readers decide what they think.

I'm more concerned that my server isn't alerting on what should be obvious error conditions.

 

[Ericloewe]

I'm more concerned that my server isn't alerting on what should be obvious error conditions.

I've been hearing stuff along those lines for a while now and it bugs me, but I don't have any drives functional enough to work but bad enough to throw SMART errors. And I'm not going to make any, artificially.

I should probably take a look at the bug tracker and look for SMART bugs...

 

[danb35]

Bug 16822 is mine, but it's marked private due to the debug file being attached. I've seen others (like @Bidule0hm) say they don't get SMART alerts, but when I've hard drive errors in the past, I'd get system alerts too. Nothing this time.

FWIW, the vendor is advance-exchanging these drives. Still probably need to replace them with something more trustworthy.

 

[Bidule0hm]

To be exact I get every alert excepted the ones for temperature.

NB: still on 9.3.0.

 

[Robert Trevellyan]

I get the temperature alerts on 9.3.1.

 

[Bidule0hm]

Yes, some members get them, some don't, and there's not a single clue to why.

 

[danb35]

My bug is marked as a duplicate of https://bugs.freenas.org/issues/15898, which is considered fixed in 9.10.1. Applying that update has helped--I'm getting a warning about da1, but not about da13 or da15.

 

[danb35]

...and just to keep the data in one thread, a fifth disk (of the six I originally bought) is now consistently failing SMART self-tests. WD Red is on its way and should be delivered today, though it'll still be about a week for burn-in/testing before I can add it to the pool.

Code:

SMART Self-test log structure revision number 1
Num  Test_Description	Status				  Remaining  LifeTime(hours)  LBA_of_first_error
# 1  Extended offline	Completed: read failure	   90%	  4671		 4199040
# 2  Short offline	   Completed: read failure	   60%	  4670		 3131595040
# 3  Short offline	   Completed: read failure	   60%	  4646		 3131595040
# 4  Short offline	   Completed: read failure	   50%	  4622		 3131595216
# 5  Short offline	   Completed without error	   00%	  4598		 -
# 6  Short offline	   Completed: read failure	   10%	  4574		 4199024
# 7  Short offline	   Completed: read failure	   10%	  4550		 4199048
# 8  Short offline	   Completed without error	   00%	  4525		 -
# 9  Extended offline	Completed without error	   00%	  4516		 -
#10  Short offline	   Completed without error	   00%	  4501		 -
#11  Short offline	   Completed without error	   00%	  4478		 -
#12  Short offline	   Completed: read failure	   10%	  4454		 4199040
#13  Short offline	   Completed: read failure	   20%	  4430		 4199024
#14  Short offline	   Completed without error	   00%	  4406		 -
#15  Short offline	   Completed without error	   00%	  4382		 -
#16  Short offline	   Completed without error	   00%	  4358		 -
#17  Extended offline	Completed without error	   00%	  4348		 -
#18  Short offline	   Completed without error	   00%	  4334		 -
#19  Short offline	   Completed without error	   00%	  4310		 -
#20  Short offline	   Completed: read failure	   30%	  4286		 4199040
#21  Short offline	   Completed without error	   00%	  4262		 -
3 of 9 failed self-tests are outdated by newer successful extended offline self-test # 9

 

[Ericloewe]

So we can safely say that the magnificent refurb process is:

1. Acquire poorly-shipped drives
2. Slap new labels on them
3. Juggle them around for good measure
4. ???
5. Profit

 

[danb35]

Somewhere (maybe step 2a) they're wiping the SMART data as well, so the drives come up with their own model and serial numbers, and 0 hours time in service. They've been quick to replace failed drives, and paid for shipping both ways, but I definitely wouldn't buy any more of these. I can only assume their business model relies on customers not really doing anything to test the drives.

 

[Jailer]

I wonder if they are a bunch of the bad seagate drives with the firmware bug. Part of the process of getting them "unstuck" wipes the smart data.

 

[danb35]

...and now the last SMART test completed without error. Go figure. The new drive's installed, and the first (of four) pass of badblocks is 95% complete.