HDDScan - Issue

[einstein9]

Dear guys

anyone knows why hddscan reports NOT REPORTED for this hdd?

i checked all modules/SA are OK but for few hdd`s i have here i got the same problem
which i dono WHY really

btw, the hdd works perfect condition but still dono why is it like that

Image Attached, any clues here?

thnx

Attachments

[fzabkar]

Umm, it's because the drive doesn't report those values. Refer to the ATA spec.

Clue #1:

The cache size "problem" has been explained numerous times in various user forums. It is also explained in a Seagate Knowledge Base article. Search and you will find.

Clue #2:

The RPM is not reported because WD prefers to obfuscate this specification with its IntelliPower marketingspeak. You can easily determine the actual speed, using tools available to the end user, if you understand what "access time" means. Once again this has been explained in several user forums.

[einstein9]

Umm, it's because the drive doesn't report those values. Refer to the ATA spec.

Clue #1:

The cache size "problem" has been explained numerous times in various user forums. It is also explained in a Seagate Knowledge Base article. Search and you will find.

Clue #2:

The RPM is not reported because WD prefers to obfuscate this specification with its IntelliPower marketingspeak. You can easily determine the actual speed, using tools available to the end user, if you understand what "access time" means. Once again this has been explained in several user forums.

thnx but this is not what i wanted, i got some bulk drives and needed to know why some are showing some are not

[Vulcan]

i got some bulk drives and needed to know why some are showing some are not

If I was in this situation, with the disks in front of me, I would compare the relevant parts of the Identify Device response, between the disks which do, and those which do not, report that information.

For those disks where HDDScan does not report the information you mention, I expect you will find the type of issues in their Identify Device response data, which fzabkar alluded to.

[fzabkar]

thnx but this is not what i wanted, i got some bulk drives and needed to know why some are showing some are not

On the contrary, I have responded with exactly the information that you wanted, albeit in the form of clues, which you seem to prefer. If you search for the articles and discussions which I have alluded to, then you will find direct answers to your questions. :wink: :idea:

[einstein9]

the issue here on reporting those info. are not related my dear
and thnx for ur clues here, but i really suspect on for example Modules maybe (chked all ok) or any info. that is related to hdd performance
such as smart n g list

[Vulcan]

@einstein9,

Unfortunately I didn't understand some of what you said, or whether you were addressing any of your reply to me. All I can say is that:

i really suspect on for example Modules maybe (chked all ok)

Every time I have seen the behaviour you described, this has not been due to a firmware fault, so therefore I am not surprised that the modules checked OK. If you want further comments from me, you'll need to supply the info from each drive that I mentioned - but of course it's your choice Good luck

[einstein9]

@einstein9,

Unfortunately I didn't understand some of what you said, or whether you were addressing any of your reply to me. All I can say is that:

i really suspect on for example Modules maybe (chked all ok)

Every time I have seen the behaviour you described, this has not been due to a firmware fault, so therefore I am not surprised that the modules checked OK. If you want further comments from me, you'll need to supply the info from each drive that I mentioned - but of course it's your choice Good luck

Well see

i bought like 50+ Bulk hdd`s 500GB, 1TB & 2TB mixed models, i did chk each one of them, repaired what is repairable
and tried to use them for my PC`s
BUT the series problem here is the following for me:

Some (70%) of those hdd`s are not reporting RPM/Cache Size (image attached) and the rest are OK

now for those which i call them with this problem i tried to use it in my DE
and here the problem begins

in DE when i DUMP hdd sectors reading after some time (5-10min) the PC performance goes very BAD/SLOW

I did format P-List and trans. Reg. to get a fresh new hdd (but same issue)

I consulted Dr-Kiev about this issue and he said this is hdd issue <---- i almost tried everything but with the same results

there is No Bad Sectors on those drives, SA/Modules/Heads are Crystal Clear no errors

all what i wanted is to have those Big hdd`s working perfect for my DE & for my new NAS as well

this is the complete story where am stuck now hehehe

back to the main Q , where do you think the problem here???

Thnx

[labtech]

Where did the drives come from? What is their history? You mentioned you were repairing them, so it seems they are used.

[fzabkar]

the issue here on reporting those info. are not related my dear
and thnx for ur clues here, but i really suspect on for example Modules maybe (chked all ok) or any info. that is related to hdd performance
such as smart n g list

:D

The cache/RPM reporting "problem" has nothing whatsoever to do with modules, G-list, or any other exotic explanation. The answer is far simpler than that. All will be revealed if you provide Vulcan with his requested information. If you are unable to retrieve the Identify Device data, please let us know and one of us will help you.

As for the WD20EARS drive in your HDDScan report, it has a cache size of 64MB. If you examine the ATA spec, then you will understand why it is impossible for a drive to report this value, at least in ATA-8. Otherwise, there is that Seagate article ...

As for the RPM, the drive is an "IntelliPower" model which doesn't report its speed.

In short, the drive doesn't report its cache size because it can't, and it doesn't report its RPM because WD has chosen not to.

If the drive has performance issues, then that's a completely unrelated problem.

[einstein9]

Well to cut it short here for my problem with those drives i have this Question:

How does hddscan gets those 2 info. (RPM/Cache size) accessing what exactly to extract those info???

Mean while, i will prepare some Screenshot of few example models which are NOT reporting those 2 info. i needed

[fzabkar]

Well to cut it short here for my problem with those drives i have this Question:

How does hddscan gets those 2 info. (RPM/Cache size) accessing what exactly to extract those info???

Mean while, i will prepare some Screenshot of few example models which are NOT reporting those 2 info. i needed

HDDScan gets its info from the same place that all HDD utilities, and BIOS, get their info, and that is via the ATA Identify Device command.

We don't need any more screenshots, we just need the raw Identify Device data.

[Doomer]

Here is the fields of ATA ID command buffer used by HDDScan


Word 21 - cache

pNode.Attributes['Name'] :='Cache size';
if IDEID.RETIRED_21<>0 then
pNode.Attributes['Value'] := IntToStr(IDEID.RETIRED_21 div 2)+' KB'
else pNode.Attributes['Value'] := 'Not Reported';


Word 168 - form factor

pNode := iNode.AddChild('Main');
pNode.Attributes['Name'] :='Nominal Form factor';
case (IDEID.DEVICE_FORM_FACTOR_168 and $F) of
0: pNode.Attributes['Value'] := 'Not Reported';
1: pNode.Attributes['Value'] := '5.25"';
2: pNode.Attributes['Value'] := '3.25"';
3: pNode.Attributes['Value'] := '2.5"';
4: pNode.Attributes['Value'] := '1.8"';
5: pNode.Attributes['Value'] := '<1.8"';
else pNode.Attributes['Value'] := 'Not Reported';
end;

Word 217 - RPM

pNode := iNode.AddChild('Main');
pNode.Attributes['Name'] :='RPM';
case (IDEID.RPM_217) of
//0: pNode.Attributes['Value'] := 'Not Reported';
1: pNode.Attributes['Value'] := 'Solid State Media';
$401..$FFFF:pNode.Attributes['Value'] := IntToStr(IDEID.RPM_217);
else pNode.Attributes['Value'] := 'Not Reported';
end;

[guru]

Nice and to the point

[fzabkar]

Mine was to the point, too.

[Vulcan]

@fzabkar,

In short, the drive doesn't report its cache size because it can't, and it doesn't report its RPM because WD has chosen not to.

Agreed. My one comment is that reporting the normal cache size has long since been retired in the ATA spec, so WD could choose not to report it for any other reason (and still be compliant with the recent versions of the spec). In the specific case of the one drive mentioned by einstein9 so far, with its 64MB cache, that size couldn't be reported using the originally designed algorithm even if WD wanted to, exactly as you said.

@Doomer:
Thanks, that's exactly what I was expecting. It really has to be like that - HDDScan can't display something useful, if the drive's Identify Device response doesn't include valid information for an item, which is exactly why I highlighted this previously. There are "invalid" values which could be reported by the drive for each of those items, and which you have chosen HDDScan to display as "Not Reported" when the drive returns an invalid / useless value. My switch statements, when I wrote something in C for another OS, were similar (although I displayed "Unknown" for invalid reported values from the drive / RAID array - just my personal preference).

When we see the raw Identify Device responses from the "affected" drives, we will see how they cause "Not Reported" to be displayed by HDDScan.

@einstein9,
In summary, as others have already mentioned, this is a firmware choice (in some cases driven by the ATA spec) and not a firmware fault. If you compare the Identify Device reponses from drives which do, and those which don't, report those details (as I suggested earlier) you'll see differences which can explain what HDDScan reports.

[guru]

Nice and to the point

[Vulcan]

@guru,

lol

P.S. It's interesting to note that the "nominal media rotation rate" is a mandatory part of the Identify Device data, in the ATA-8 version of the spec. Therefore it would seem that WD are technically breaking the spec, by not supplying the correct information (probably for the marketing reason, which fzabkar suggested).

[guru]

Nice and to the point

[fzabkar]

@fzabkar,

In short, the drive doesn't report its cache size because it can't, and it doesn't report its RPM because WD has chosen not to.

Agreed. :good: My one comment is that reporting the normal cache size has long since been retired in the ATA spec, so WD could choose not to report it for any other reason (and still be compliant with the recent versions of the spec). In the specific case of the one drive mentioned by einstein9 so far, with its 64MB cache, that size couldn't be reported using the originally designed algorithm even if WD wanted to, exactly as you said. :)

If the OP had done his research (as he is fond of telling others to do), then he would have found the following article:

Detecting Buffer or Cache Size in ATA Hard Disk Drives:
http://knowledge.seagate.com/articles/e ... uage=en_GB

He would also have found the following Identify Device data:
http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/HDD/WD ... 0MVWB0.TXT

Alternatively, if he had asked for an answer rather than a clue (as is the manner in which he is accustomed to responding to others), then I would have provided the above information at the outset. That's the point I was making.