[gentoo-user] New hard drive. Is this normal? It looks like a connect problem.

[gentoo-user] New hard drive. Is this normal? It looks like a connect problem.

[Dale]

Howdy,

I ran up on a couple deals.  I first bought a 16TB drive which worked
fine.  Then I saw a deal on a 20TB drive.  I first put it in a external
enclosure and connected it by eSATA cable to my new rig.  I got this in
messages.


May  5 15:41:31 Gentoo-1 kernel: ata4: found unknown device (class 0)
May  5 15:41:40 Gentoo-1 kernel: ata4: softreset failed (1st FIS failed)
May  5 15:41:41 Gentoo-1 kernel: ata4: found unknown device (class 0)
May  5 15:41:50 Gentoo-1 kernel: ata4: softreset failed (1st FIS failed)
May  5 15:41:51 Gentoo-1 kernel: ata4: found unknown device (class 0)
May  5 15:41:59 Gentoo-1 kernel: ata4: found unknown device (class 0)
May  5 15:41:59 Gentoo-1 kernel: ata4: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus
113 SControl 300)
May  5 15:41:59 Gentoo-1 kernel: ata4: link online but 1 devices
misclassified, retrying
May  5 15:41:59 Gentoo-1 kernel: ata4: reset failed (errno=-11),
retrying in 27 secs
May  5 15:42:26 Gentoo-1 kernel: ata4: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus
113 SControl 300)
May  5 15:42:26 Gentoo-1 kernel: ata4.00: ATA-11: ST20000NM007D-3DJ103,
SN05, max UDMA/133
May  5 15:42:26 Gentoo-1 kernel: ata4.00: 39063650304 sectors, multi 16:
LBA48 NCQ (depth 32), AA
May  5 15:42:26 Gentoo-1 kernel: ata4.00: Features: NCQ-sndrcv
May  5 15:42:26 Gentoo-1 kernel: ata4.00: configured for UDMA/133
May  5 15:42:26 Gentoo-1 kernel: scsi 3:0:0:0: Direct-Access    
ATA      ST20000NM007D-3D SN05 PQ: 0 ANSI: 5
May  5 15:42:26 Gentoo-1 kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg2
type 0
May  5 15:42:26 Gentoo-1 kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdk] 39063650304 512-byte
logical blocks: (20.0 TB/18.2 TiB)
May  5 15:42:26 Gentoo-1 kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdk] 4096-byte physical blocks
May  5 15:42:26 Gentoo-1 kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdk] Write Protect is off
May  5 15:42:26 Gentoo-1 kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdk] Mode Sense: 00 3a 00 00
May  5 15:42:26 Gentoo-1 kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdk] Write cache: enabled,
read cache: enabled, doesn't support DPO or FUA
May  5 15:42:26 Gentoo-1 kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdk] Preferred minimum I/O
size 4096 bytes
May  5 15:42:26 Gentoo-1 kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdk] Attached SCSI disk


I thought it might be the enclosure so I booted up my NAS box, removed
the drive from the enclosure and connected it bare by SATA cable to the
NAS box mobo SATA connector.  This is what NAS box shows. 


May  5 16:00:20 nas kernel: ata4: link is slow to respond, please be
patient (ready=0)
May  5 16:00:24 nas kernel: ata4: found unknown device (class 0)
May  5 16:00:24 nas last message buffered 1 times
May  5 16:00:24 nas kernel: ata4: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123
SControl 300)
May  5 16:00:24 nas kernel: ata4: link online but 1 devices
misclassified, retrying
May  5 16:00:30 nas kernel: ata4: link is slow to respond, please be
patient (ready=0)
May  5 16:00:34 nas kernel: ata4: found unknown device (class 0)
May  5 16:00:34 nas last message buffered 1 times
May  5 16:00:34 nas kernel: ata4: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123
SControl 300)
May  5 16:00:34 nas kernel: ata4: link online but 1 devices
misclassified, retrying
May  5 16:00:40 nas kernel: ata4: link is slow to respond, please be
patient (ready=0)
May  5 16:00:42 nas kernel: ata4: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123
SControl 300)
May  5 16:00:42 nas kernel: ata4.00: ATA-11: ST20000NM007D-3DJ103, SN05,
max UDMA/133
May  5 16:00:42 nas kernel: ata4.00: 39063650304 sectors, multi 16:
LBA48 NCQ (depth 32), AA
May  5 16:00:42 nas kernel: ata4.00: Features: NCQ-sndrcv
May  5 16:00:42 nas kernel: ata4.00: configured for UDMA/133
May  5 16:00:42 nas kernel: scsi 3:0:0:0: Direct-Access     ATA     
ST20000NM007D-3D SN05 PQ: 0 ANSI: 5
May  5 16:00:42 nas kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg1 type 0
May  5 16:00:42 nas kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdb] 39063650304 512-byte
logical blocks: (20.0 TB/18.2 TiB)
May  5 16:00:42 nas kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdb] 4096-byte physical blocks
May  5 16:00:42 nas kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdb] Write Protect is off
May  5 16:00:42 nas kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdb] Write cache: enabled, read
cache: enabled, doesn't support DPO or FUA
May  5 16:00:42 nas kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdb] Preferred minimum I/O size
4096 bytes
May  5 16:00:42 nas kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdb] Attached SCSI removable disk


Connected directly, no external enclosure, it connects at normal speed. 
Maybe the enclosure limits the speed???  What concerns me with the NAS
box info, the first part about slow to respond.  Is that normal?  Also,
is it likely since it works on the NAS box at full speed that the
enclosure is causing the slow down or is that slow to respond a possible
cause? 

I ran the conveyance and short test and it passed both tests.  I'm about
to start the long test.  I figure that will take a couple days, or close
to it.  Looking for thoughts on whether this drive has issues.  I might
add, the company I buy from packages their drives to survive about
anything.  Drive is put in a tough plastic bubble wrap made just for
hard drives and that is placed in a box.  They then wrap that box in
large bubble wrap, like any of us can buy, and put that in a large
second box.  I can't imagine the drive being damaged in shipping. 

Oh, when I get a new drive, I first watch messages to see how it
connects.  Then I run conveyance test, short test and then long test. 
If it passes all that, I then add it to a LVM drive set or use in some
other way.  I'm thinking about buying another spare 20TB.  Good deal at
just over $200 and current drive has only 2 run hours.  O_O 

Thoughts on the above info?  Anyone seen this before?  Is this drive
perfectly fine?  Need to return?

Thanks.

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] New hard drive. Is this normal? It looks like a connect problem.

[Michael]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6240 bytes --]

On Monday, 5 May 2025 22:15:52 British Summer Time Dale wrote:
> Howdy,
> 
> I ran up on a couple deals.  I first bought a 16TB drive which worked
> fine.  Then I saw a deal on a 20TB drive.  I first put it in a external
> enclosure and connected it by eSATA cable to my new rig.  I got this in
> messages.
> 
> 
> May  5 15:41:31 Gentoo-1 kernel: ata4: found unknown device (class 0)
> May  5 15:41:40 Gentoo-1 kernel: ata4: softreset failed (1st FIS failed)
> May  5 15:41:41 Gentoo-1 kernel: ata4: found unknown device (class 0)
> May  5 15:41:50 Gentoo-1 kernel: ata4: softreset failed (1st FIS failed)
> May  5 15:41:51 Gentoo-1 kernel: ata4: found unknown device (class 0)
> May  5 15:41:59 Gentoo-1 kernel: ata4: found unknown device (class 0)
> May  5 15:41:59 Gentoo-1 kernel: ata4: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus
> 113 SControl 300)
> May  5 15:41:59 Gentoo-1 kernel: ata4: link online but 1 devices
> misclassified, retrying
> May  5 15:41:59 Gentoo-1 kernel: ata4: reset failed (errno=-11),
> retrying in 27 secs
> May  5 15:42:26 Gentoo-1 kernel: ata4: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus
> 113 SControl 300)
> May  5 15:42:26 Gentoo-1 kernel: ata4.00: ATA-11: ST20000NM007D-3DJ103,
> SN05, max UDMA/133
> May  5 15:42:26 Gentoo-1 kernel: ata4.00: 39063650304 sectors, multi 16:
> LBA48 NCQ (depth 32), AA
> May  5 15:42:26 Gentoo-1 kernel: ata4.00: Features: NCQ-sndrcv
> May  5 15:42:26 Gentoo-1 kernel: ata4.00: configured for UDMA/133
> May  5 15:42:26 Gentoo-1 kernel: scsi 3:0:0:0: Direct-Access    
> ATA      ST20000NM007D-3D SN05 PQ: 0 ANSI: 5
> May  5 15:42:26 Gentoo-1 kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg2
> type 0
> May  5 15:42:26 Gentoo-1 kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdk] 39063650304 512-byte
> logical blocks: (20.0 TB/18.2 TiB)
> May  5 15:42:26 Gentoo-1 kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdk] 4096-byte physical blocks
> May  5 15:42:26 Gentoo-1 kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdk] Write Protect is off
> May  5 15:42:26 Gentoo-1 kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdk] Mode Sense: 00 3a 00 00
> May  5 15:42:26 Gentoo-1 kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdk] Write cache: enabled,
> read cache: enabled, doesn't support DPO or FUA
> May  5 15:42:26 Gentoo-1 kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdk] Preferred minimum I/O
> size 4096 bytes
> May  5 15:42:26 Gentoo-1 kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdk] Attached SCSI disk
> 
> 
> I thought it might be the enclosure so I booted up my NAS box, removed
> the drive from the enclosure and connected it bare by SATA cable to the
> NAS box mobo SATA connector.  This is what NAS box shows. 
> 
> 
> May  5 16:00:20 nas kernel: ata4: link is slow to respond, please be
> patient (ready=0)
> May  5 16:00:24 nas kernel: ata4: found unknown device (class 0)
> May  5 16:00:24 nas last message buffered 1 times
> May  5 16:00:24 nas kernel: ata4: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123
> SControl 300)
> May  5 16:00:24 nas kernel: ata4: link online but 1 devices
> misclassified, retrying
> May  5 16:00:30 nas kernel: ata4: link is slow to respond, please be
> patient (ready=0)
> May  5 16:00:34 nas kernel: ata4: found unknown device (class 0)
> May  5 16:00:34 nas last message buffered 1 times
> May  5 16:00:34 nas kernel: ata4: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123
> SControl 300)
> May  5 16:00:34 nas kernel: ata4: link online but 1 devices
> misclassified, retrying
> May  5 16:00:40 nas kernel: ata4: link is slow to respond, please be
> patient (ready=0)
> May  5 16:00:42 nas kernel: ata4: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123
> SControl 300)
> May  5 16:00:42 nas kernel: ata4.00: ATA-11: ST20000NM007D-3DJ103, SN05,
> max UDMA/133
> May  5 16:00:42 nas kernel: ata4.00: 39063650304 sectors, multi 16:
> LBA48 NCQ (depth 32), AA
> May  5 16:00:42 nas kernel: ata4.00: Features: NCQ-sndrcv
> May  5 16:00:42 nas kernel: ata4.00: configured for UDMA/133
> May  5 16:00:42 nas kernel: scsi 3:0:0:0: Direct-Access     ATA     
> ST20000NM007D-3D SN05 PQ: 0 ANSI: 5
> May  5 16:00:42 nas kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg1 type 0
> May  5 16:00:42 nas kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdb] 39063650304 512-byte
> logical blocks: (20.0 TB/18.2 TiB)
> May  5 16:00:42 nas kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdb] 4096-byte physical blocks
> May  5 16:00:42 nas kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdb] Write Protect is off
> May  5 16:00:42 nas kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdb] Write cache: enabled, read
> cache: enabled, doesn't support DPO or FUA
> May  5 16:00:42 nas kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdb] Preferred minimum I/O size
> 4096 bytes
> May  5 16:00:42 nas kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdb] Attached SCSI removable disk
> 
> 
> Connected directly, no external enclosure, it connects at normal speed. 
> Maybe the enclosure limits the speed???  What concerns me with the NAS
> box info, the first part about slow to respond.  Is that normal?  Also,
> is it likely since it works on the NAS box at full speed that the
> enclosure is causing the slow down or is that slow to respond a possible
> cause? 
> 
> I ran the conveyance and short test and it passed both tests.  I'm about
> to start the long test.  I figure that will take a couple days, or close
> to it.  Looking for thoughts on whether this drive has issues.  I might
> add, the company I buy from packages their drives to survive about
> anything.  Drive is put in a tough plastic bubble wrap made just for
> hard drives and that is placed in a box.  They then wrap that box in
> large bubble wrap, like any of us can buy, and put that in a large
> second box.  I can't imagine the drive being damaged in shipping. 
> 
> Oh, when I get a new drive, I first watch messages to see how it
> connects.  Then I run conveyance test, short test and then long test. 
> If it passes all that, I then add it to a LVM drive set or use in some
> other way.  I'm thinking about buying another spare 20TB.  Good deal at
> just over $200 and current drive has only 2 run hours.  O_O 
> 
> Thoughts on the above info?  Anyone seen this before?  Is this drive
> perfectly fine?  Need to return?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-) 

Initially I'd be suspecting the SATA cable/port, but if you tried another MoBo 
did you also try a different SATA cable?

Were the ports you connected to compatible with SATA 3 revision capable of 
6Gb/s?  Notwithstanding the warnings and errors you'd want the highest 
transfer speed you can get on a new drive.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] New hard drive. Is this normal? It looks like a connect problem.

[Dale]

Michael wrote:
> On Monday, 5 May 2025 22:15:52 British Summer Time Dale wrote:
>> Howdy,
>>
>> I ran up on a couple deals.  I first bought a 16TB drive which worked
>> fine.  Then I saw a deal on a 20TB drive.  I first put it in a external
>> enclosure and connected it by eSATA cable to my new rig.  I got this in
>> messages.
>>
>>
>> May  5 15:41:31 Gentoo-1 kernel: ata4: found unknown device (class 0)
>> May  5 15:41:40 Gentoo-1 kernel: ata4: softreset failed (1st FIS failed)
>> May  5 15:41:41 Gentoo-1 kernel: ata4: found unknown device (class 0)
>> May  5 15:41:50 Gentoo-1 kernel: ata4: softreset failed (1st FIS failed)
>> May  5 15:41:51 Gentoo-1 kernel: ata4: found unknown device (class 0)
>> May  5 15:41:59 Gentoo-1 kernel: ata4: found unknown device (class 0)
>> May  5 15:41:59 Gentoo-1 kernel: ata4: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus
>> 113 SControl 300)
>> May  5 15:41:59 Gentoo-1 kernel: ata4: link online but 1 devices
>> misclassified, retrying
>> May  5 15:41:59 Gentoo-1 kernel: ata4: reset failed (errno=-11),
>> retrying in 27 secs
>> May  5 15:42:26 Gentoo-1 kernel: ata4: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus
>> 113 SControl 300)
>> May  5 15:42:26 Gentoo-1 kernel: ata4.00: ATA-11: ST20000NM007D-3DJ103,
>> SN05, max UDMA/133
>> May  5 15:42:26 Gentoo-1 kernel: ata4.00: 39063650304 sectors, multi 16:
>> LBA48 NCQ (depth 32), AA
>> May  5 15:42:26 Gentoo-1 kernel: ata4.00: Features: NCQ-sndrcv
>> May  5 15:42:26 Gentoo-1 kernel: ata4.00: configured for UDMA/133
>> May  5 15:42:26 Gentoo-1 kernel: scsi 3:0:0:0: Direct-Access    
>> ATA      ST20000NM007D-3D SN05 PQ: 0 ANSI: 5
>> May  5 15:42:26 Gentoo-1 kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg2
>> type 0
>> May  5 15:42:26 Gentoo-1 kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdk] 39063650304 512-byte
>> logical blocks: (20.0 TB/18.2 TiB)
>> May  5 15:42:26 Gentoo-1 kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdk] 4096-byte physical blocks
>> May  5 15:42:26 Gentoo-1 kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdk] Write Protect is off
>> May  5 15:42:26 Gentoo-1 kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdk] Mode Sense: 00 3a 00 00
>> May  5 15:42:26 Gentoo-1 kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdk] Write cache: enabled,
>> read cache: enabled, doesn't support DPO or FUA
>> May  5 15:42:26 Gentoo-1 kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdk] Preferred minimum I/O
>> size 4096 bytes
>> May  5 15:42:26 Gentoo-1 kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdk] Attached SCSI disk
>>
>>
>> I thought it might be the enclosure so I booted up my NAS box, removed
>> the drive from the enclosure and connected it bare by SATA cable to the
>> NAS box mobo SATA connector.  This is what NAS box shows. 
>>
>>
>> May  5 16:00:20 nas kernel: ata4: link is slow to respond, please be
>> patient (ready=0)
>> May  5 16:00:24 nas kernel: ata4: found unknown device (class 0)
>> May  5 16:00:24 nas last message buffered 1 times
>> May  5 16:00:24 nas kernel: ata4: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123
>> SControl 300)
>> May  5 16:00:24 nas kernel: ata4: link online but 1 devices
>> misclassified, retrying
>> May  5 16:00:30 nas kernel: ata4: link is slow to respond, please be
>> patient (ready=0)
>> May  5 16:00:34 nas kernel: ata4: found unknown device (class 0)
>> May  5 16:00:34 nas last message buffered 1 times
>> May  5 16:00:34 nas kernel: ata4: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123
>> SControl 300)
>> May  5 16:00:34 nas kernel: ata4: link online but 1 devices
>> misclassified, retrying
>> May  5 16:00:40 nas kernel: ata4: link is slow to respond, please be
>> patient (ready=0)
>> May  5 16:00:42 nas kernel: ata4: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123
>> SControl 300)
>> May  5 16:00:42 nas kernel: ata4.00: ATA-11: ST20000NM007D-3DJ103, SN05,
>> max UDMA/133
>> May  5 16:00:42 nas kernel: ata4.00: 39063650304 sectors, multi 16:
>> LBA48 NCQ (depth 32), AA
>> May  5 16:00:42 nas kernel: ata4.00: Features: NCQ-sndrcv
>> May  5 16:00:42 nas kernel: ata4.00: configured for UDMA/133
>> May  5 16:00:42 nas kernel: scsi 3:0:0:0: Direct-Access     ATA     
>> ST20000NM007D-3D SN05 PQ: 0 ANSI: 5
>> May  5 16:00:42 nas kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg1 type 0
>> May  5 16:00:42 nas kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdb] 39063650304 512-byte
>> logical blocks: (20.0 TB/18.2 TiB)
>> May  5 16:00:42 nas kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdb] 4096-byte physical blocks
>> May  5 16:00:42 nas kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdb] Write Protect is off
>> May  5 16:00:42 nas kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdb] Write cache: enabled, read
>> cache: enabled, doesn't support DPO or FUA
>> May  5 16:00:42 nas kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdb] Preferred minimum I/O size
>> 4096 bytes
>> May  5 16:00:42 nas kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdb] Attached SCSI removable disk
>>
>>
>> Connected directly, no external enclosure, it connects at normal speed. 
>> Maybe the enclosure limits the speed???  What concerns me with the NAS
>> box info, the first part about slow to respond.  Is that normal?  Also,
>> is it likely since it works on the NAS box at full speed that the
>> enclosure is causing the slow down or is that slow to respond a possible
>> cause? 
>>
>> I ran the conveyance and short test and it passed both tests.  I'm about
>> to start the long test.  I figure that will take a couple days, or close
>> to it.  Looking for thoughts on whether this drive has issues.  I might
>> add, the company I buy from packages their drives to survive about
>> anything.  Drive is put in a tough plastic bubble wrap made just for
>> hard drives and that is placed in a box.  They then wrap that box in
>> large bubble wrap, like any of us can buy, and put that in a large
>> second box.  I can't imagine the drive being damaged in shipping. 
>>
>> Oh, when I get a new drive, I first watch messages to see how it
>> connects.  Then I run conveyance test, short test and then long test. 
>> If it passes all that, I then add it to a LVM drive set or use in some
>> other way.  I'm thinking about buying another spare 20TB.  Good deal at
>> just over $200 and current drive has only 2 run hours.  O_O 
>>
>> Thoughts on the above info?  Anyone seen this before?  Is this drive
>> perfectly fine?  Need to return?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Dale
>>
>> :-)  :-) 
> Initially I'd be suspecting the SATA cable/port, but if you tried another MoBo 
> did you also try a different SATA cable?
>
> Were the ports you connected to compatible with SATA 3 revision capable of 
> 6Gb/s?  Notwithstanding the warnings and errors you'd want the highest 
> transfer speed you can get on a new drive.


I think the speed issue might be that external enclosure I used.  I've
got two of those I think.  The other external enclosures work at full
speed tho.  They a lot newer model.  The thing I like about the one I
used, I just open a door, slide the drive in, close the door and it's
ready to go.  My newer type enclosures require me to disassemble them to
put the drive in.  They are nice enclosures when you plan to leave a
drive in them for a while. 

The concern I have mostly is the slow part when hooked to the NAS mobo
directly.  I have a good size power supply for that old thing.  It
likely runs at about a 20% load most of the time.  The most excitement
it sees is when I do OS updates and backup updates at the same time. 
LOL  I included that first error just in case it may be relevant to the
one from the NAS box about being slow. 

When I did some searches for that error, I never found a real answer to
the question.  Is that normal for some drives or a sign of future
failure?  It's a 20TB Seagate EXOS Enterprise drive.  Maybe it has a
extra platter which takes longer to spin up or something and it is
normal.  Then again, maybe it is a weak motor that is about to fail. 
Some stuff I found claimed it was a kernel error.  I've never seen that
on either of my systems and I been using those same kernels for a long
time.  As most know, I have quite a few large drives here. o_O

As far as I know, all my rigs are SATA 3 ready. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] New hard drive. Is this normal? It looks like a connect problem.

[Michael]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2309 bytes --]

On Tuesday, 6 May 2025 13:59:16 British Summer Time Dale wrote:
> Michael wrote:

> > Initially I'd be suspecting the SATA cable/port, but if you tried another
> > MoBo did you also try a different SATA cable?
> > 
> > Were the ports you connected to compatible with SATA 3 revision capable of
> > 6Gb/s?  Notwithstanding the warnings and errors you'd want the highest
> > transfer speed you can get on a new drive.
> 
> I think the speed issue might be that external enclosure I used.  I've
> got two of those I think.  The other external enclosures work at full
> speed tho.  

Try one of your SATA 3 enclosures.

Try a different SATA/eSATA cable depending on connecting the drive internally/
externally.


> The concern I have mostly is the slow part when hooked to the NAS mobo
> directly.  I have a good size power supply for that old thing.  It
> likely runs at about a 20% load most of the time.  The most excitement
> it sees is when I do OS updates and backup updates at the same time. 
> LOL  I included that first error just in case it may be relevant to the
> one from the NAS box about being slow. 

I think the messages you received show the drive is slow to initialize, which 
could be an issue with low power, or poor cable connection.


> When I did some searches for that error, I never found a real answer to
> the question.  Is that normal for some drives or a sign of future
> failure?  It's a 20TB Seagate EXOS Enterprise drive.  Maybe it has a
> extra platter which takes longer to spin up or something and it is
> normal.  Then again, maybe it is a weak motor that is about to fail. 
> Some stuff I found claimed it was a kernel error.  I've never seen that
> on either of my systems and I been using those same kernels for a long
> time.  As most know, I have quite a few large drives here. o_O
> 
> As far as I know, all my rigs are SATA 3 ready. 

If you connect a SATA 3 capable drive to a SATA 3 controller you should get 
SATA 3 speeds.  In the messages you shared I SATA 1 and SATA 2 speeds only.  
If you've tried different cables and the SATA ports are definitely SATA 3, 
then the problem must be related to the drive.

You could try disconnecting all other spinning drives from the MoBo, connect 
ST20000NM007D and boot with the latest adminCD to see what messages you get.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] New hard drive. Is this normal? It looks like a connect problem.

[Dale]

Michael wrote:
> On Tuesday, 6 May 2025 13:59:16 British Summer Time Dale wrote:
>> Michael wrote:
>>> Initially I'd be suspecting the SATA cable/port, but if you tried another
>>> MoBo did you also try a different SATA cable?
>>>
>>> Were the ports you connected to compatible with SATA 3 revision capable of
>>> 6Gb/s?  Notwithstanding the warnings and errors you'd want the highest
>>> transfer speed you can get on a new drive.
>> I think the speed issue might be that external enclosure I used.  I've
>> got two of those I think.  The other external enclosures work at full
>> speed tho.  
> Try one of your SATA 3 enclosures.
>
> Try a different SATA/eSATA cable depending on connecting the drive internally/
> externally.

I was only using the enclosure to test the drive while connected to my
main rig.  I'm not planning to leave it in there once the testing is
done.  I'm not one to buy a drive and put data on it right away.  I test
first then once it is proven to be good, then I put data on it.  When I
saw the slow data speed connection, I suspected the enclosure, never
used it to test a drive before, so I moved the drive to my NAS box rig
where I could connect it directly and remove any doubt about something
in the middle causing problems.  When I put it on the NAS box, I used
the same power cable and data cable that I use to update my backups and
it works without error.  I don't see how it can be the data cable, power
or mobo in this case.  All those work fine when doing backups.  It
powers 4 hard drives in that setup.  Soon to be 5 drives. 

>
>> The concern I have mostly is the slow part when hooked to the NAS mobo
>> directly.  I have a good size power supply for that old thing.  It
>> likely runs at about a 20% load most of the time.  The most excitement
>> it sees is when I do OS updates and backup updates at the same time. 
>> LOL  I included that first error just in case it may be relevant to the
>> one from the NAS box about being slow. 
> I think the messages you received show the drive is slow to initialize, which 
> could be an issue with low power, or poor cable connection.
>
>
>> When I did some searches for that error, I never found a real answer to
>> the question.  Is that normal for some drives or a sign of future
>> failure?  It's a 20TB Seagate EXOS Enterprise drive.  Maybe it has a
>> extra platter which takes longer to spin up or something and it is
>> normal.  Then again, maybe it is a weak motor that is about to fail. 
>> Some stuff I found claimed it was a kernel error.  I've never seen that
>> on either of my systems and I been using those same kernels for a long
>> time.  As most know, I have quite a few large drives here. o_O
>>
>> As far as I know, all my rigs are SATA 3 ready. 
> If you connect a SATA 3 capable drive to a SATA 3 controller you should get 
> SATA 3 speeds.  In the messages you shared I SATA 1 and SATA 2 speeds only.  
> If you've tried different cables and the SATA ports are definitely SATA 3, 
> then the problem must be related to the drive.
>
> You could try disconnecting all other spinning drives from the MoBo, connect 
> ST20000NM007D and boot with the latest adminCD to see what messages you get.


The only other drive connected is a SSD for the OS.  As mentioned above,
this is what I use to connect a 4 drive setup for my backups.  I even
use the same power connector.  I also used one of the same data cables. 
I might add, I just tested a 16TB drive and it worked without error of
any kind.  It's in the safe while I figure out which drive, 16TB or
20TB, is going to be added to my backup drives and which will be added
to my main rig. 

So far, this is the first drive I've ever seen this 'slow to respond'
message with before.  Since I've never seen it before, curious as to
what it means exactly and is it normal?  Searching didn't help.  Some
claim kernel, others claim something else. 

As soon as this test completes, another few hours to go yet, I'm going
to power cycle the drive again to see what it does.  I may cycle it a
few times to see if it is a consistent problem as well. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] New hard drive. Is this normal? It looks like a connect problem.

[Wol]

On 06/05/2025 21:51, Dale wrote:
> So far, this is the first drive I've ever seen this 'slow to respond'
> message with before.  Since I've never seen it before, curious as to
> what it means exactly and is it normal?  Searching didn't help.  Some
> claim kernel, others claim something else.

Did you ADD that drive to all the others when it came up with that 
message? Is it possible that the drain of that extra drive caused a 
brown-out in the enclosure?

I know I've had systems where the power had trips in to bring the drives 
up with random delays (mini-computers) because the system was quite 
capable of powering running drives, but couldn't provide the necessary 
boot-up surge to all the drives simultaneously.

Cheers,
Wol

Re: [gentoo-user] New hard drive. Is this normal? It looks like a connect problem.

[Dale]

Wol wrote:
> On 06/05/2025 21:51, Dale wrote:
>> So far, this is the first drive I've ever seen this 'slow to respond'
>> message with before.  Since I've never seen it before, curious as to
>> what it means exactly and is it normal?  Searching didn't help.  Some
>> claim kernel, others claim something else.
>
> Did you ADD that drive to all the others when it came up with that
> message? Is it possible that the drain of that extra drive caused a
> brown-out in the enclosure?
>
> I know I've had systems where the power had trips in to bring the
> drives up with random delays (mini-computers) because the system was
> quite capable of powering running drives, but couldn't provide the
> necessary boot-up surge to all the drives simultaneously.
>
> Cheers,
> Wol
>
> .
>


The other drives are in the safe.  The only drives connected are the SSD
for the OS and this one drive.  Originally, I was going to use the
external enclosure connected to my main rig to just test the drive. 
When I saw the slow data connection speed, I removed it from the
enclosure and hooked it to the NAS box.  I wanted to be sure it was the
enclosure causing the slow data connection.  It appears that enclosure
is SATA 2 or something.  Anyway, it was when I connected to the NAS box
as a bare drive that I noticed the slow to respond message.  It may have
been there on my main rig as well but I just didn't notice it.  I
usually use tail -f to watch and hit the return key a few times to
separate what I want to watch from the normal logging.  It may have done
the same on my main rig and I missed it.  I sometimes forget to hit
return a few times. 

At this point, I don't know if I should return this drive or keep it as
is.  I don't know if this is a problem with this drive or normal for
some drives to be slow to respond at times.  I don't recall ever seeing
it before. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] New hard drive. Is this normal? It looks like a connect problem.

[Dale]

Dale wrote:
> Michael wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 6 May 2025 13:59:16 British Summer Time Dale wrote:
>>> Michael wrote:
>>>> Initially I'd be suspecting the SATA cable/port, but if you tried another
>>>> MoBo did you also try a different SATA cable?
>>>>
>>>> Were the ports you connected to compatible with SATA 3 revision capable of
>>>> 6Gb/s?  Notwithstanding the warnings and errors you'd want the highest
>>>> transfer speed you can get on a new drive.
>>> I think the speed issue might be that external enclosure I used.  I've
>>> got two of those I think.  The other external enclosures work at full
>>> speed tho.  
>> Try one of your SATA 3 enclosures.
>>
>> Try a different SATA/eSATA cable depending on connecting the drive internally/
>> externally.
> I was only using the enclosure to test the drive while connected to my
> main rig.  I'm not planning to leave it in there once the testing is
> done.  I'm not one to buy a drive and put data on it right away.  I test
> first then once it is proven to be good, then I put data on it.  When I
> saw the slow data speed connection, I suspected the enclosure, never
> used it to test a drive before, so I moved the drive to my NAS box rig
> where I could connect it directly and remove any doubt about something
> in the middle causing problems.  When I put it on the NAS box, I used
> the same power cable and data cable that I use to update my backups and
> it works without error.  I don't see how it can be the data cable, power
> or mobo in this case.  All those work fine when doing backups.  It
> powers 4 hard drives in that setup.  Soon to be 5 drives. 
>
>>> The concern I have mostly is the slow part when hooked to the NAS mobo
>>> directly.  I have a good size power supply for that old thing.  It
>>> likely runs at about a 20% load most of the time.  The most excitement
>>> it sees is when I do OS updates and backup updates at the same time. 
>>> LOL  I included that first error just in case it may be relevant to the
>>> one from the NAS box about being slow. 
>> I think the messages you received show the drive is slow to initialize, which 
>> could be an issue with low power, or poor cable connection.
>>
>>
>>> When I did some searches for that error, I never found a real answer to
>>> the question.  Is that normal for some drives or a sign of future
>>> failure?  It's a 20TB Seagate EXOS Enterprise drive.  Maybe it has a
>>> extra platter which takes longer to spin up or something and it is
>>> normal.  Then again, maybe it is a weak motor that is about to fail. 
>>> Some stuff I found claimed it was a kernel error.  I've never seen that
>>> on either of my systems and I been using those same kernels for a long
>>> time.  As most know, I have quite a few large drives here. o_O
>>>
>>> As far as I know, all my rigs are SATA 3 ready. 
>> If you connect a SATA 3 capable drive to a SATA 3 controller you should get 
>> SATA 3 speeds.  In the messages you shared I SATA 1 and SATA 2 speeds only.  
>> If you've tried different cables and the SATA ports are definitely SATA 3, 
>> then the problem must be related to the drive.
>>
>> You could try disconnecting all other spinning drives from the MoBo, connect 
>> ST20000NM007D and boot with the latest adminCD to see what messages you get.
>
> The only other drive connected is a SSD for the OS.  As mentioned above,
> this is what I use to connect a 4 drive setup for my backups.  I even
> use the same power connector.  I also used one of the same data cables. 
> I might add, I just tested a 16TB drive and it worked without error of
> any kind.  It's in the safe while I figure out which drive, 16TB or
> 20TB, is going to be added to my backup drives and which will be added
> to my main rig. 
>
> So far, this is the first drive I've ever seen this 'slow to respond'
> message with before.  Since I've never seen it before, curious as to
> what it means exactly and is it normal?  Searching didn't help.  Some
> claim kernel, others claim something else. 
>
> As soon as this test completes, another few hours to go yet, I'm going
> to power cycle the drive again to see what it does.  I may cycle it a
> few times to see if it is a consistent problem as well. 
>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-) 
>


As a update, the long SMART test finished without error.  I cycled the
drive off for a few minutes, to be sure the kernel has finished its
house cleaning.  When I powered it back up, this was in messages. 



May  6 18:07:36 nas kernel: ata4: link is slow to respond, please be
patient (ready=0)
May  6 18:07:41 nas kernel: ata4: found unknown device (class 0)
May  6 18:07:41 nas last message buffered 1 times
May  6 18:07:41 nas kernel: ata4: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123
SControl 300)
May  6 18:07:41 nas kernel: ata4: link online but 1 devices
misclassified, retrying
May  6 18:07:46 nas kernel: ata4: link is slow to respond, please be
patient (ready=0)
May  6 18:07:51 nas kernel: ata4: found unknown device (class 0)
May  6 18:07:51 nas last message buffered 1 times
May  6 18:07:51 nas kernel: ata4: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123
SControl 300)
May  6 18:07:51 nas kernel: ata4: link online but 1 devices
misclassified, retrying
May  6 18:07:57 nas kernel: ata4: link is slow to respond, please be
patient (ready=0)
May  6 18:07:59 nas kernel: ata4: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123
SControl 300)
May  6 18:07:59 nas kernel: ata4.00: ATA-11: ST20000NM007D-3DJ103, SN05,
max UDMA/133
May  6 18:07:59 nas kernel: ata4.00: 39063650304 sectors, multi 16:
LBA48 NCQ (depth 32), AA
May  6 18:07:59 nas kernel: ata4.00: Features: NCQ-sndrcv
May  6 18:07:59 nas kernel: ata4.00: configured for UDMA/133
May  6 18:07:59 nas kernel: scsi 3:0:0:0: Direct-Access     ATA     
ST20000NM007D-3D SN05 PQ: 0 ANSI: 5
May  6 18:07:59 nas kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: Attached scsi generic sg1 type 0
May  6 18:07:59 nas kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdb] 39063650304 512-byte
logical blocks: (20.0 TB/18.2 TiB)
May  6 18:07:59 nas kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdb] 4096-byte physical blocks
May  6 18:07:59 nas kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdb] Write Protect is off
May  6 18:07:59 nas kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdb] Write cache: enabled, read
cache: enabled, doesn't support DPO or FUA
May  6 18:07:59 nas kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdb] Preferred minimum I/O size
4096 bytes
May  6 18:07:59 nas kernel: sd 3:0:0:0: [sdb] Attached SCSI removable disk



I ran a hdparm test.  I wanted to see as accurately as I could what the
speed was.  I got this. 



root@nas ~ # hdparm -tT /dev/sdb

/dev/sdb:
 Timing cached reads:   7106 MB in  2.00 seconds = 3554.48 MB/sec
 Timing buffered disk reads: 802 MB in  3.00 seconds = 267.03 MB/sec
root@nas ~ #


From what I've seen of other drives, that appears to be SATA 3 or the
faster speed.  So, it is slow to respond but connects and works fine. 

My question still remains tho.  Do I need to return this drive because
this is a sign of upcoming failure or is it normal and just carry on
with the drive? 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] New hard drive. Is this normal? It looks like a connect problem.

[Michael]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3183 bytes --]

On Wednesday, 7 May 2025 00:30:34 British Summer Time Dale wrote:
> Dale wrote:
> > Michael wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, 6 May 2025 13:59:16 British Summer Time Dale wrote:
> >>> Michael wrote:

> > When I put it on the NAS box, I used
> > the same power cable and data cable that I use to update my backups and
> > it works without error.  I don't see how it can be the data cable, power
> > or mobo in this case.  All those work fine when doing backups.  It
> > powers 4 hard drives in that setup.  Soon to be 5 drives. 

It might be the connector on the drive itself, rather than the cable.  From 
what you say the cable is sound.  I must admit, it is unlikely the drive 
arrived with a bad port on it.  :-/


> As a update, the long SMART test finished without error.  I cycled the
> drive off for a few minutes, to be sure the kernel has finished its
> house cleaning.  When I powered it back up, this was in messages. 
> 
> 
> 
> May  6 18:07:36 nas kernel: ata4: link is slow to respond, please be
> patient (ready=0)
> May  6 18:07:41 nas kernel: ata4: found unknown device (class 0)
> May  6 18:07:41 nas last message buffered 1 times
> May  6 18:07:41 nas kernel: ata4: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123
> SControl 300)

Still showing up as a SATA 2, which if you have connected it to a SATA 3 port 
on the MoBo should be 6.0 Gbps.


> I ran a hdparm test.  I wanted to see as accurately as I could what the
> speed was.  I got this. 
> 
> 
> 
> root@nas ~ # hdparm -tT /dev/sdb
> 
> /dev/sdb:
>  Timing cached reads:   7106 MB in  2.00 seconds = 3554.48 MB/sec

These are rather pedestrian ^^^^ but I do not have any drives as large as 
yours to compare.  A 4G drive here shows this:

~ # hdparm -tT /dev/sda

/dev/sda:
 Timing cached reads:   52818 MB in  1.99 seconds = 26531.72 MB/sec
 Timing buffered disk reads: 752 MB in  3.00 seconds = 250.45 MB/sec

That's an order of magnitude higher cached reads.


>  Timing buffered disk reads: 802 MB in  3.00 seconds = 267.03 MB/sec
> root@nas ~ #
> 
> 
> From what I've seen of other drives, that appears to be SATA 3 or the
> faster speed.  So, it is slow to respond but connects and works fine. 
> 
> My question still remains tho.  Do I need to return this drive because
> this is a sign of upcoming failure or is it normal and just carry on
> with the drive? 
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-) 

Have you interrogated the drive using 'hdparm -I /dev/sdX' to check its output 
and compare it with your 16TB healthy drive?

It could be the controller on this drive is faulty, or it could be its huge 
storage size is achieved by some form of an internal SATA port multiplier of 
sorts, essentially stitching together two drives and making them look like 
one.  This is just me speculating wildly as to what might be causing the 
results you are seeing:

https://forums.truenas.com/t/multiply-your-problems-with-sata-port-multipliers-and-cheap-sata-controllers/1504

If you don't find anything meaningful being reported with hdparm, then I 
suggest it is time you contact the OEM's support and ask them directly if they 
have pulled some SMR-like trick and this is the reason for your results, or if 
it is faulty and you should RMA it.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] New hard drive. Is this normal? It looks like a connect problem.

[Dale]

Michael wrote:
> On Wednesday, 7 May 2025 00:30:34 British Summer Time Dale wrote:
>> Dale wrote:
>>> Michael wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, 6 May 2025 13:59:16 British Summer Time Dale wrote:
>>>>> Michael wrote:
>>> When I put it on the NAS box, I used
>>> the same power cable and data cable that I use to update my backups and
>>> it works without error.  I don't see how it can be the data cable, power
>>> or mobo in this case.  All those work fine when doing backups.  It
>>> powers 4 hard drives in that setup.  Soon to be 5 drives. 
> It might be the connector on the drive itself, rather than the cable.  From 
> what you say the cable is sound.  I must admit, it is unlikely the drive 
> arrived with a bad port on it.  :-/
>

Given I had used two different cables, two different power supplies, two
different mobos and got the same error, it can't be that.  The odds of
two cables picked at random giving the same error with the same drive
has to be really small.  I'd think if the power supply had issues, the
OS drive would complain to, on at least one of the rigs I tested it on. 
I might add, I took the side off my old rig, which also used to have
lots of drives in it.  I get the same slow to respond message but it
does connect at 6GBs. 


>> As a update, the long SMART test finished without error.  I cycled the
>> drive off for a few minutes, to be sure the kernel has finished its
>> house cleaning.  When I powered it back up, this was in messages. 
>>
>>
>>
>> May  6 18:07:36 nas kernel: ata4: link is slow to respond, please be
>> patient (ready=0)
>> May  6 18:07:41 nas kernel: ata4: found unknown device (class 0)
>> May  6 18:07:41 nas last message buffered 1 times
>> May  6 18:07:41 nas kernel: ata4: SATA link up 3.0 Gbps (SStatus 123
>> SControl 300)
> Still showing up as a SATA 2, which if you have connected it to a SATA 3 port 
> on the MoBo should be 6.0 Gbps.
>
>
>> I ran a hdparm test.  I wanted to see as accurately as I could what the
>> speed was.  I got this. 
>>
>>
>>
>> root@nas ~ # hdparm -tT /dev/sdb
>>
>> /dev/sdb:
>>  Timing cached reads:   7106 MB in  2.00 seconds = 3554.48 MB/sec
> These are rather pedestrian ^^^^ but I do not have any drives as large as 
> yours to compare.  A 4G drive here shows this:
>
> ~ # hdparm -tT /dev/sda
>
> /dev/sda:
>  Timing cached reads:   52818 MB in  1.99 seconds = 26531.72 MB/sec
>  Timing buffered disk reads: 752 MB in  3.00 seconds = 250.45 MB/sec
>
> That's an order of magnitude higher cached reads.
>
>
>>  Timing buffered disk reads: 802 MB in  3.00 seconds = 267.03 MB/sec
>> root@nas ~ #
>>
>>
>> From what I've seen of other drives, that appears to be SATA 3 or the
>> faster speed.  So, it is slow to respond but connects and works fine. 
>>
>> My question still remains tho.  Do I need to return this drive because
>> this is a sign of upcoming failure or is it normal and just carry on
>> with the drive? 
>>
>> Dale
>>
>> :-)  :-) 
> Have you interrogated the drive using 'hdparm -I /dev/sdX' to check its output 
> and compare it with your 16TB healthy drive?
>
> It could be the controller on this drive is faulty, or it could be its huge 
> storage size is achieved by some form of an internal SATA port multiplier of 
> sorts, essentially stitching together two drives and making them look like 
> one.  This is just me speculating wildly as to what might be causing the 
> results you are seeing:
>
> https://forums.truenas.com/t/multiply-your-problems-with-sata-port-multipliers-and-cheap-sata-controllers/1504
>
> If you don't find anything meaningful being reported with hdparm, then I 
> suggest it is time you contact the OEM's support and ask them directly if they 
> have pulled some SMR-like trick and this is the reason for your results, or if 
> it is faulty and you should RMA it.


I didn't know about that until now.  I already shutdown my old rig. 
Might try that later.  It may shed some light on this mess. 

I did send a email to the seller tho.  They sell a LOT of drives.  I've
seen them show a stock of over 200 drives of a particular model and a
day or so later, sold out.  They sell new, a few kinds of used as well. 
I tend to buy used but most of the time, the number of power on hours is
in the single digits.  The recent drives show 2 hours each.  I think if
it is a problem, they will know since they test a lot of drives.  Maybe
it is normal but if not, I'm sure they will agree to swap or refund. 
They sold out of the 20TB drives shortly after I ordered mine.  They
started with right at 200 and sold out in like 2 or 3 days. 

I figure I'll hear back shortly.  They been pretty fast to respond to
questions in the past. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] New hard drive. Is this normal? It looks like a connect problem.

[Dale]

Dale wrote:
> I didn't know about that until now.  I already shutdown my old rig. 
> Might try that later.  It may shed some light on this mess. 
>
> I did send a email to the seller tho.  They sell a LOT of drives.  I've
> seen them show a stock of over 200 drives of a particular model and a
> day or so later, sold out.  They sell new, a few kinds of used as well. 
> I tend to buy used but most of the time, the number of power on hours is
> in the single digits.  The recent drives show 2 hours each.  I think if
> it is a problem, they will know since they test a lot of drives.  Maybe
> it is normal but if not, I'm sure they will agree to swap or refund. 
> They sold out of the 20TB drives shortly after I ordered mine.  They
> started with right at 200 and sold out in like 2 or 3 days. 
>
> I figure I'll hear back shortly.  They been pretty fast to respond to
> questions in the past. 
>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-) 
>


I got a response.  This is what they said. 



> Thank you for bringing this to our attention. As long as we're not
> seeing any I/O errors that would inhibit your ability to use the
> drive, everything should be fine.
>
> This type of link speed negotiation issue can occur with helium-filled
> drives, as their spin-up time tends to be slightly longer than that of
> traditional drives. Is your system or HBA a bit on the older side?
> Most modern toolsets and software account for this extended spin-up
> time by allowing a longer delay before attempting speed negotiation,
> which typically avoids this issue altogether.
>
> In summary, this isn't unprecedented behavior when working with older
> hardware or software, but at this stage, it doesn’t point to any major
> functional problem. I hope this information helps. 


As I mentioned, it passed all the SMART tests.  I'm not sure on the
3GB/sec connection yet tho.  I'm pretty sure that mobo is capable of
6GBs/sec tho.  When I put it in my main rig, I'll know for sure. 

What are your thoughts on what they say?  It make sense to anyone who
knows more about hard drives than me?  Now if they can just find that
last drive I ordered that is several days late. 

Thanks. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] New hard drive. Is this normal? It looks like a connect problem.

[Michael]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6312 bytes --]

On Saturday, 10 May 2025 16:53:55 British Summer Time Dale wrote:
> Dale wrote:
> > I didn't know about that until now.  I already shutdown my old rig. 
> > Might try that later.  It may shed some light on this mess. 
> > 
> > I did send a email to the seller tho.  They sell a LOT of drives.  I've
> > seen them show a stock of over 200 drives of a particular model and a
> > day or so later, sold out.  They sell new, a few kinds of used as well. 
> > I tend to buy used but most of the time, the number of power on hours is
> > in the single digits.  The recent drives show 2 hours each.  I think if
> > it is a problem, they will know since they test a lot of drives.  Maybe
> > it is normal but if not, I'm sure they will agree to swap or refund. 
> > They sold out of the 20TB drives shortly after I ordered mine.  They
> > started with right at 200 and sold out in like 2 or 3 days. 
> > 
> > I figure I'll hear back shortly.  They been pretty fast to respond to
> > questions in the past. 
> > 
> > Dale
> > 
> > :-)  :-) 
> 
> I got a response.  This is what they said. 
> 
> > Thank you for bringing this to our attention. As long as we're not
> > seeing any I/O errors that would inhibit your ability to use the
> > drive, everything should be fine.
> > 
> > This type of link speed negotiation issue can occur with helium-filled
> > drives, as their spin-up time tends to be slightly longer than that of
> > traditional drives. Is your system or HBA a bit on the older side?
> > Most modern toolsets and software account for this extended spin-up
> > time by allowing a longer delay before attempting speed negotiation,
> > which typically avoids this issue altogether.
> > 
> > In summary, this isn't unprecedented behavior when working with older
> > hardware or software, but at this stage, it doesn’t point to any major
> > functional problem. I hope this information helps.
> 
> As I mentioned, it passed all the SMART tests.

What do you get for the smart attribute with ID 22?

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/smart-22-is-a-gas-gas-gas/

Although others report ID 16 as the "Current Helium Level", or "Internal 
Environmental Status" attribute.  The ID number and Attribute description 
depends on the drive firmware.


> I'm not sure on the
> 3GB/sec connection yet tho.  I'm pretty sure that mobo is capable of
> 6GBs/sec tho.  When I put it in my main rig, I'll know for sure. 

Slow spin-up or not, if it is not performing at 6Gbps as advertised when 
connected to a SATA 3 bus, then it is not fit for purpose - assuming transfer 
speeds are a consideration for you and you don't want to let this slip.


> What are your thoughts on what they say?  It make sense to anyone who
> knows more about hard drives than me?  Now if they can just find that
> last drive I ordered that is several days late. 
> 
> Thanks. 
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-) 

My knowledge of drives is quite limited and my working knowledge of large 
Helium filled drives is a fat zero.  Despite this, here's some random thoughts 
- should you wish to read further:

I have read drives which have seen continuous service in large datacenters and 
crypto-mining farms for a couple of years are decommissioned, tested, reset to 
zero and sold cheaper as 'refurbished'.  If you keep an eye on Amazon and 
other large retailers and you notice large batches of refurbished drives 
suddenly show up sold at cut prices, then this is in all likelihood their 
origin and explains the low prices.  When you check the perturbations in 
supply you'll notice some makes, models and sizes of drives arrive rather 
prematurely compared to their age in the refurbished drives marketplace and 
this is an indication of early failure rates higher than the big datacenters 
were wishing to see.  It doesn't necessarily make all of these drives bad, but 
it is something to bear in mind when you check how much warranty they are 
being sold with after they are labelled as 'refurbished', compared to the 
original OEM warranty when new.

Regarding Helium sealed drives, they are reported to have a slightly lower 
average failure rate than conventional drives.  Helium having a lower density 
than air and not smelling anywhere as bad as methane ;-) is used to reduce 
aerodynamic drag of the moving parts within the drive.  The idea being such 
drives will consume less energy to run, with less windage the platters vibrate 
less and therefore they can be packed tighter, they will run cooler and at 
least theoretically will last longer.

The laser welding techniques to seal the helium in the drive casing and keep 
denser air out is meant to ensure the 5 year warranty these drives are sold 
with when new.  In practice, any light weight small molecule gas can leak and 
in this case the drive will lose its Helium content - and soon fail smart 
tests.  As it loses Helium at some point it will start to draw more energy to 
operate in a higher drag environment.  Since any SATA controller power 
threshold is not unlimited, the increased drag will cause a slower spin-up 
than when it was new.

I'm not saying your drive is failing, but the slow spin-up argument *because* 
...  Helium, could be somewhat moot.  Modelling studies have shown ceteris 
paribus a Helium filled drive will spin *faster* and remain cooler than an air 
filled drive:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225162945_Thermal_analysis_of_helium-filled_enterprise_disk_drive

You can check if smartctl output shows a different Spin-Up Time value against 
other drives - if this Attribute is reported at all.  The Average Latency of 
your 20TB Helium filled drive is reported in its data sheet as 4.16ms - the 
same as 16TB, 14TB, 12TB non-Helium Ironwolf Pro drives.  This indicates the 
time for an I/O request to be completed, not necessarily a spin-up performance 
alone, but why should your 20TB be slower to spin up?   I don't know.  :-/  

Anyway, these are a lay person's comments.  A drive engineer will know exactly 
what's what with this technology and its performance variations.  A chat with 
Seagate's support may get you closer to the truth and explain why the 16TB 
drive spins up nicely while the 20TB drags its feet.

HTH,

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] New hard drive. Is this normal? It looks like a connect problem.

[Dale]

Michael wrote:
> On Saturday, 10 May 2025 16:53:55 British Summer Time Dale wrote:
>> Dale wrote:
>>> I didn't know about that until now.  I already shutdown my old rig. 
>>> Might try that later.  It may shed some light on this mess. 
>>>
>>> I did send a email to the seller tho.  They sell a LOT of drives.  I've
>>> seen them show a stock of over 200 drives of a particular model and a
>>> day or so later, sold out.  They sell new, a few kinds of used as well. 
>>> I tend to buy used but most of the time, the number of power on hours is
>>> in the single digits.  The recent drives show 2 hours each.  I think if
>>> it is a problem, they will know since they test a lot of drives.  Maybe
>>> it is normal but if not, I'm sure they will agree to swap or refund. 
>>> They sold out of the 20TB drives shortly after I ordered mine.  They
>>> started with right at 200 and sold out in like 2 or 3 days. 
>>>
>>> I figure I'll hear back shortly.  They been pretty fast to respond to
>>> questions in the past. 
>>>
>>> Dale
>>>
>>> :-)  :-) 
>> I got a response.  This is what they said. 
>>
>>> Thank you for bringing this to our attention. As long as we're not
>>> seeing any I/O errors that would inhibit your ability to use the
>>> drive, everything should be fine.
>>>
>>> This type of link speed negotiation issue can occur with helium-filled
>>> drives, as their spin-up time tends to be slightly longer than that of
>>> traditional drives. Is your system or HBA a bit on the older side?
>>> Most modern toolsets and software account for this extended spin-up
>>> time by allowing a longer delay before attempting speed negotiation,
>>> which typically avoids this issue altogether.
>>>
>>> In summary, this isn't unprecedented behavior when working with older
>>> hardware or software, but at this stage, it doesn’t point to any major
>>> functional problem. I hope this information helps.
>> As I mentioned, it passed all the SMART tests.
> What do you get for the smart attribute with ID 22?
>
> https://www.backblaze.com/blog/smart-22-is-a-gas-gas-gas/
>
> Although others report ID 16 as the "Current Helium Level", or "Internal 
> Environmental Status" attribute.  The ID number and Attribute description 
> depends on the drive firmware.
>
>
>> I'm not sure on the
>> 3GB/sec connection yet tho.  I'm pretty sure that mobo is capable of
>> 6GBs/sec tho.  When I put it in my main rig, I'll know for sure. 
> Slow spin-up or not, if it is not performing at 6Gbps as advertised when 
> connected to a SATA 3 bus, then it is not fit for purpose - assuming transfer 
> speeds are a consideration for you and you don't want to let this slip.
>
>
>> What are your thoughts on what they say?  It make sense to anyone who
>> knows more about hard drives than me?  Now if they can just find that
>> last drive I ordered that is several days late. 
>>
>> Thanks. 
>>
>> Dale
>>
>> :-)  :-) 
> My knowledge of drives is quite limited and my working knowledge of large 
> Helium filled drives is a fat zero.  Despite this, here's some random thoughts 
> - should you wish to read further:
>
> I have read drives which have seen continuous service in large datacenters and 
> crypto-mining farms for a couple of years are decommissioned, tested, reset to 
> zero and sold cheaper as 'refurbished'.  If you keep an eye on Amazon and 
> other large retailers and you notice large batches of refurbished drives 
> suddenly show up sold at cut prices, then this is in all likelihood their 
> origin and explains the low prices.  When you check the perturbations in 
> supply you'll notice some makes, models and sizes of drives arrive rather 
> prematurely compared to their age in the refurbished drives marketplace and 
> this is an indication of early failure rates higher than the big datacenters 
> were wishing to see.  It doesn't necessarily make all of these drives bad, but 
> it is something to bear in mind when you check how much warranty they are 
> being sold with after they are labelled as 'refurbished', compared to the 
> original OEM warranty when new.
>
> Regarding Helium sealed drives, they are reported to have a slightly lower 
> average failure rate than conventional drives.  Helium having a lower density 
> than air and not smelling anywhere as bad as methane ;-) is used to reduce 
> aerodynamic drag of the moving parts within the drive.  The idea being such 
> drives will consume less energy to run, with less windage the platters vibrate 
> less and therefore they can be packed tighter, they will run cooler and at 
> least theoretically will last longer.
>
> The laser welding techniques to seal the helium in the drive casing and keep 
> denser air out is meant to ensure the 5 year warranty these drives are sold 
> with when new.  In practice, any light weight small molecule gas can leak and 
> in this case the drive will lose its Helium content - and soon fail smart 
> tests.  As it loses Helium at some point it will start to draw more energy to 
> operate in a higher drag environment.  Since any SATA controller power 
> threshold is not unlimited, the increased drag will cause a slower spin-up 
> than when it was new.
>
> I'm not saying your drive is failing, but the slow spin-up argument *because* 
> ...  Helium, could be somewhat moot.  Modelling studies have shown ceteris 
> paribus a Helium filled drive will spin *faster* and remain cooler than an air 
> filled drive:
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225162945_Thermal_analysis_of_helium-filled_enterprise_disk_drive
>
> You can check if smartctl output shows a different Spin-Up Time value against 
> other drives - if this Attribute is reported at all.  The Average Latency of 
> your 20TB Helium filled drive is reported in its data sheet as 4.16ms - the 
> same as 16TB, 14TB, 12TB non-Helium Ironwolf Pro drives.  This indicates the 
> time for an I/O request to be completed, not necessarily a spin-up performance 
> alone, but why should your 20TB be slower to spin up?   I don't know.  :-/  
>
> Anyway, these are a lay person's comments.  A drive engineer will know exactly 
> what's what with this technology and its performance variations.  A chat with 
> Seagate's support may get you closer to the truth and explain why the 16TB 
> drive spins up nicely while the 20TB drags its feet.
>
> HTH,


OK.  My old 8TB SMR drive seems to be having . . . issues.  Luckily I
bought two 16TB drives and a 20TB, topic of this thread.  So I got a
spare drive.  Anyway, I finally got some time to hook this 20TB drive
back up to my main rig with a external enclosure that I know works at
full speed.  Other drives do.  I recall you mentioning using hdparm -I. 
Here is the output of that.


root@Gentoo-1 / # hdparm -I /dev/sdb

/dev/sdb:

ATA device, with non-removable media
        Model Number:       ST20000NM007D-3DJ103                   
        Serial Number:      :-D :-D :-D
        Firmware Revision:  SN05   
        Transport:          Serial, ATA8-AST, SATA 1.0a, SATA II
Extensions, SATA Rev 2.5, SATA Rev 2.6, SATA Rev 3.0
Standards:
        Used: unknown (minor revision code 0xffff)
        Supported: 11 10 9 8 7 6 5
        Likely used: 11
Configuration:
        Logical         max     current
        cylinders       16383   16383
        heads           16      16
        sectors/track   63      63
        --
        CHS current addressable sectors:    16514064
        LBA    user addressable sectors:   268435455
        LBA48  user addressable sectors: 39063650304
        Logical  Sector size:                   512 bytes [ Supported:
512 4096 ]
        Physical Sector size:                  4096 bytes
        Logical Sector-0 offset:                  0 bytes
        device size with M = 1024*1024:    19074048 MBytes
        device size with M = 1000*1000:    20000588 MBytes (20000 GB)
        cache/buffer size  = unknown
        Form Factor: 3.5 inch
        Nominal Media Rotation Rate: 7200
Capabilities:
        LBA, IORDY(can be disabled)
        Queue depth: 32
        Standby timer values: spec'd by Standard, no device specific minimum
        R/W multiple sector transfer: Max = 16  Current = 16
        Recommended acoustic management value: 254, current value: 0
        DMA: mdma0 mdma1 mdma2 udma0 udma1 udma2 udma3 udma4 udma5 *udma6
             Cycle time: min=120ns recommended=120ns
        PIO: pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4
             Cycle time: no flow control=120ns  IORDY flow control=120ns
Commands/features:
        Enabled Supported:
           *    SMART feature set
                Security Mode feature set
           *    Power Management feature set
           *    Write cache
           *    Look-ahead
           *    WRITE_BUFFER command
           *    READ_BUFFER command
           *    DOWNLOAD_MICROCODE
                Power-Up In Standby feature set
           *    SET_FEATURES required to spinup after power up
                SET_MAX security extension
           *    48-bit Address feature set
           *    Mandatory FLUSH_CACHE
           *    FLUSH_CACHE_EXT
           *    SMART error logging
           *    SMART self-test
           *    Media Card Pass-Through
           *    General Purpose Logging feature set
           *    WRITE_{DMA|MULTIPLE}_FUA_EXT
           *    64-bit World wide name
           *    IDLE_IMMEDIATE with UNLOAD
                Write-Read-Verify feature set
           *    WRITE_UNCORRECTABLE_EXT command
           *    {READ,WRITE}_DMA_EXT_GPL commands
           *    Segmented DOWNLOAD_MICROCODE
           *    unknown 119[6]
           *    unknown 119[7]
                unknown 119[8]
                unknown 119[9]
           *    Gen1 signaling speed (1.5Gb/s)
           *    Gen2 signaling speed (3.0Gb/s)
           *    Gen3 signaling speed (6.0Gb/s)
           *    Native Command Queueing (NCQ)
           *    Phy event counters
           *    Idle-Unload when NCQ is active
           *    READ_LOG_DMA_EXT equivalent to READ_LOG_EXT
           *    DMA Setup Auto-Activate optimization
                Device-initiated interface power management
           *    Software settings preservation
                unknown 78[7]
           *    SMART Command Transport (SCT) feature set
           *    SCT Write Same (AC2)
           *    SCT Error Recovery Control (AC3)
           *    SCT Features Control (AC4)
           *    SCT Data Tables (AC5)
                unknown 206[7]
                unknown 206[12] (vendor specific)
                unknown 206[13] (vendor specific)
                unknown 206[14] (vendor specific)
           *    SANITIZE_ANTIFREEZE_LOCK_EXT command
           *    SANITIZE feature set
           *    OVERWRITE_EXT command
           *    All write cache is non-volatile
           *    Extended number of user addressable sectors
Security:
        Master password revision code = 65534
                supported
        not     enabled
        not     locked
        not     frozen
        not     expired: security count
                supported: enhanced erase
        1716min for SECURITY ERASE UNIT. 1716min for ENHANCED SECURITY
ERASE UNIT.
Logical Unit WWN Device Identifier: 5000c500e59b0554
        NAA             : 5
        IEEE OUI        : 000c50
        Unique ID       : 0e59b0554
Checksum: correct
root@Gentoo-1 / #


If I recall correctly, udma6 is the fastest speed.  So, in the end the
drive should be connected at 6GB/sec.  Right?  Also, do you see anything
else in there that would concern you?  I'm also going to include the
output of smartctl -a for it as well. 



root@Gentoo-1 / # smartctl -a /dev/sdb
smartctl 7.4 2023-08-01 r5530 [x86_64-linux-6.9.10-gentoo] (local build)
Copyright (C) 2002-23, Bruce Allen, Christian Franke, www.smartmontools.org

=== START OF INFORMATION SECTION ===
Model Family:     Seagate Exos X20
Device Model:     ST20000NM007D-3DJ103
Serial Number:   :-D :-D :-D
LU WWN Device Id: 5 000c50 0e59b0554
Firmware Version: SN05
User Capacity:    20,000,588,955,648 bytes [20.0 TB]
Sector Sizes:     512 bytes logical, 4096 bytes physical
Rotation Rate:    7200 rpm
Form Factor:      3.5 inches
Device is:        In smartctl database 7.3/5671
ATA Version is:   ACS-4 (minor revision not indicated)
SATA Version is:  SATA 3.3, 6.0 Gb/s (current: 6.0 Gb/s)
Local Time is:    Mon May 12 03:05:08 2025 CDT
SMART support is: Available - device has SMART capability.
SMART support is: Enabled

=== START OF READ SMART DATA SECTION ===
SMART overall-health self-assessment test result: PASSED

General SMART Values:
Offline data collection status:  (0x82) Offline data collection activity
                                        was completed without error.
                                        Auto Offline Data Collection:
Enabled.
Self-test execution status:      (   0) The previous self-test routine
completed
                                        without error or no self-test
has ever
                                        been run.
Total time to complete Offline
data collection:                (  567) seconds.
Offline data collection
capabilities:                    (0x7b) SMART execute Offline immediate.
                                        Auto Offline data collection
on/off support.
                                        Suspend Offline collection upon new
                                        command.
                                        Offline surface scan supported.
                                        Self-test supported.
                                        Conveyance Self-test supported.
                                        Selective Self-test supported.
SMART capabilities:            (0x0003) Saves SMART data before entering
                                        power-saving mode.
                                        Supports SMART auto save timer.
Error logging capability:        (0x01) Error logging supported.
                                        General Purpose Logging supported.
Short self-test routine
recommended polling time:        (   1) minutes.
Extended self-test routine
recommended polling time:        (1714) minutes.
Conveyance self-test routine
recommended polling time:        (   2) minutes.
SCT capabilities:              (0x70bd) SCT Status supported.
                                        SCT Error Recovery Control
supported.
                                        SCT Feature Control supported.
                                        SCT Data Table supported.

SMART Attributes Data Structure revision number: 10
Vendor Specific SMART Attributes with Thresholds:
ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME          FLAG     VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE     
UPDATED  WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE
  1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate     0x000f   083   079   044    Pre-fail 
Always       -       0/223644630
  3 Spin_Up_Time            0x0003   091   091   000    Pre-fail 
Always       -       0
  4 Start_Stop_Count        0x0032   100   100   020    Old_age  
Always       -       12
  5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct   0x0033   100   100   010    Pre-fail 
Always       -       0
  7 Seek_Error_Rate         0x000f   071   060   045    Pre-fail 
Always       -       0/12784911
  9 Power_On_Hours          0x0032   100   100   000    Old_age  
Always       -       36
 10 Spin_Retry_Count        0x0013   100   100   097    Pre-fail 
Always       -       0
 12 Power_Cycle_Count       0x0032   100   100   020    Old_age  
Always       -       12
 18 Head_Health             0x000b   100   100   050    Pre-fail 
Always       -       0
187 Reported_Uncorrect      0x0032   100   100   000    Old_age  
Always       -       0
188 Command_Timeout         0x0032   100   100   000    Old_age  
Always       -       0 0 0
190 Airflow_Temperature_Cel 0x0022   071   049   000    Old_age  
Always       -       29 (Min/Max 24/29)
192 Power-Off_Retract_Count 0x0032   100   100   000    Old_age  
Always       -       5
193 Load_Cycle_Count        0x0032   100   100   000    Old_age  
Always       -       13
194 Temperature_Celsius     0x0022   029   048   000    Old_age  
Always       -       29 (0 22 0 0 0)
197 Current_Pending_Sector  0x0012   100   100   000    Old_age  
Always       -       0
198 Offline_Uncorrectable   0x0010   100   100   000    Old_age  
Offline      -       0
199 UDMA_CRC_Error_Count    0x003e   200   200   000    Old_age  
Always       -       15
200 Pressure_Limit          0x0023   100   100   001    Pre-fail 
Always       -       0
240 Head_Flying_Hours       0x0000   100   100   000    Old_age  
Offline      -       35h+57m+09.784s
241 Total_LBAs_Written      0x0000   100   253   000    Old_age  
Offline      -       46594603
242 Total_LBAs_Read         0x0000   100   253   000    Old_age  
Offline      -       3602490543

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  Extended offline    Completed without error       00%       
28         -
# 2  Short offline       Completed without error       00%        
2         -
# 3  Conveyance offline  Completed without error       00%        
2         -
# 4  Short offline       Completed without error       00%        
0         -
# 5  Short offline       Completed without error       00%        
0         -
# 6  Short offline       Completed without error       00%        
0         -
# 7  Short offline       Completed without error       00%        
0         -

SMART Selective self-test log data structure revision number 1
 SPAN  MIN_LBA  MAX_LBA  CURRENT_TEST_STATUS
    1        0        0  Not_testing
    2        0        0  Not_testing
    3        0        0  Not_testing
    4        0        0  Not_testing
    5        0        0  Not_testing
Selective self-test flags (0x0):
  After scanning selected spans, do NOT read-scan remainder of disk.
If Selective self-test is pending on power-up, resume after 0 minute delay.

The above only provides legacy SMART information - try 'smartctl -x' for
more

root@Gentoo-1 / #


I'm thinking about adding this to my backup drive set.  With this
addition, I can have one backup for all my videos instead of breaking it
into two pieces. 

Any concerns with the data you see?  Would you be OK using this drive? 
Bad thing is, if not, they sold out of this drive right now.  Might
could get a refund but nothing to swap with unless I'm willing to wait
until they get more in. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] New hard drive. Is this normal? It looks like a connect problem.

[Michael]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 19086 bytes --]

On Monday, 12 May 2025 09:11:54 British Summer Time Dale wrote:
> Michael wrote:
> > On Saturday, 10 May 2025 16:53:55 British Summer Time Dale wrote:
> >> Dale wrote:
> >>> I didn't know about that until now.  I already shutdown my old rig.
> >>> Might try that later.  It may shed some light on this mess.
> >>> 
> >>> I did send a email to the seller tho.  They sell a LOT of drives.  I've
> >>> seen them show a stock of over 200 drives of a particular model and a
> >>> day or so later, sold out.  They sell new, a few kinds of used as well.
> >>> I tend to buy used but most of the time, the number of power on hours is
> >>> in the single digits.  The recent drives show 2 hours each.  I think if
> >>> it is a problem, they will know since they test a lot of drives.  Maybe
> >>> it is normal but if not, I'm sure they will agree to swap or refund.
> >>> They sold out of the 20TB drives shortly after I ordered mine.  They
> >>> started with right at 200 and sold out in like 2 or 3 days.
> >>> 
> >>> I figure I'll hear back shortly.  They been pretty fast to respond to
> >>> questions in the past.
> >>> 
> >>> Dale
> >>> 
> >>> :-)  :-)
> >> 
> >> I got a response.  This is what they said.
> >> 
> >>> Thank you for bringing this to our attention. As long as we're not
> >>> seeing any I/O errors that would inhibit your ability to use the
> >>> drive, everything should be fine.
> >>> 
> >>> This type of link speed negotiation issue can occur with helium-filled
> >>> drives, as their spin-up time tends to be slightly longer than that of
> >>> traditional drives. Is your system or HBA a bit on the older side?
> >>> Most modern toolsets and software account for this extended spin-up
> >>> time by allowing a longer delay before attempting speed negotiation,
> >>> which typically avoids this issue altogether.
> >>> 
> >>> In summary, this isn't unprecedented behavior when working with older
> >>> hardware or software, but at this stage, it doesn’t point to any major
> >>> functional problem. I hope this information helps.
> >> 
> >> As I mentioned, it passed all the SMART tests.
> > 
> > What do you get for the smart attribute with ID 22?
> > 
> > https://www.backblaze.com/blog/smart-22-is-a-gas-gas-gas/
> > 
> > Although others report ID 16 as the "Current Helium Level", or "Internal
> > Environmental Status" attribute.  The ID number and Attribute description
> > depends on the drive firmware.
> > 
> >> I'm not sure on the
> >> 3GB/sec connection yet tho.  I'm pretty sure that mobo is capable of
> >> 6GBs/sec tho.  When I put it in my main rig, I'll know for sure.
> > 
> > Slow spin-up or not, if it is not performing at 6Gbps as advertised when
> > connected to a SATA 3 bus, then it is not fit for purpose - assuming
> > transfer speeds are a consideration for you and you don't want to let
> > this slip.> 
> >> What are your thoughts on what they say?  It make sense to anyone who
> >> knows more about hard drives than me?  Now if they can just find that
> >> last drive I ordered that is several days late.
> >> 
> >> Thanks.
> >> 
> >> Dale
> >> 
> >> :-)  :-)
> > 
> > My knowledge of drives is quite limited and my working knowledge of large
> > Helium filled drives is a fat zero.  Despite this, here's some random
> > thoughts - should you wish to read further:
> > 
> > I have read drives which have seen continuous service in large datacenters
> > and crypto-mining farms for a couple of years are decommissioned, tested,
> > reset to zero and sold cheaper as 'refurbished'.  If you keep an eye on
> > Amazon and other large retailers and you notice large batches of
> > refurbished drives suddenly show up sold at cut prices, then this is in
> > all likelihood their origin and explains the low prices.  When you check
> > the perturbations in supply you'll notice some makes, models and sizes of
> > drives arrive rather prematurely compared to their age in the refurbished
> > drives marketplace and this is an indication of early failure rates
> > higher than the big datacenters were wishing to see.  It doesn't
> > necessarily make all of these drives bad, but it is something to bear in
> > mind when you check how much warranty they are being sold with after they
> > are labelled as 'refurbished', compared to the original OEM warranty when
> > new.
> > 
> > Regarding Helium sealed drives, they are reported to have a slightly lower
> > average failure rate than conventional drives.  Helium having a lower
> > density than air and not smelling anywhere as bad as methane ;-) is used
> > to reduce aerodynamic drag of the moving parts within the drive.  The
> > idea being such drives will consume less energy to run, with less windage
> > the platters vibrate less and therefore they can be packed tighter, they
> > will run cooler and at least theoretically will last longer.
> > 
> > The laser welding techniques to seal the helium in the drive casing and
> > keep denser air out is meant to ensure the 5 year warranty these drives
> > are sold with when new.  In practice, any light weight small molecule gas
> > can leak and in this case the drive will lose its Helium content - and
> > soon fail smart tests.  As it loses Helium at some point it will start to
> > draw more energy to operate in a higher drag environment.  Since any SATA
> > controller power threshold is not unlimited, the increased drag will
> > cause a slower spin-up than when it was new.
> > 
> > I'm not saying your drive is failing, but the slow spin-up argument
> > *because* ...  Helium, could be somewhat moot.  Modelling studies have
> > shown ceteris paribus a Helium filled drive will spin *faster* and remain
> > cooler than an air filled drive:
> > 
> > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225162945_Thermal_analysis_of_hel
> > ium-filled_enterprise_disk_drive
> > 
> > You can check if smartctl output shows a different Spin-Up Time value
> > against other drives - if this Attribute is reported at all.  The Average
> > Latency of your 20TB Helium filled drive is reported in its data sheet as
> > 4.16ms - the same as 16TB, 14TB, 12TB non-Helium Ironwolf Pro drives. 
> > This indicates the time for an I/O request to be completed, not
> > necessarily a spin-up performance alone, but why should your 20TB be
> > slower to spin up?   I don't know.  :-/
> > 
> > Anyway, these are a lay person's comments.  A drive engineer will know
> > exactly what's what with this technology and its performance variations. 
> > A chat with Seagate's support may get you closer to the truth and explain
> > why the 16TB drive spins up nicely while the 20TB drags its feet.
> > 
> > HTH,
> 
> OK.  My old 8TB SMR drive seems to be having . . . issues.  Luckily I
> bought two 16TB drives and a 20TB, topic of this thread.  So I got a
> spare drive.  Anyway, I finally got some time to hook this 20TB drive
> back up to my main rig with a external enclosure that I know works at
> full speed.  Other drives do.  I recall you mentioning using hdparm -I. 
> Here is the output of that.
> 
> 
> root@Gentoo-1 / # hdparm -I /dev/sdb
> 
> /dev/sdb:
> 
> ATA device, with non-removable media
>         Model Number:       ST20000NM007D-3DJ103                   
>         Serial Number:      :-D :-D :-D
>         Firmware Revision:  SN05   
>         Transport:          Serial, ATA8-AST, SATA 1.0a, SATA II
> Extensions, SATA Rev 2.5, SATA Rev 2.6, SATA Rev 3.0
                                               ^^^^^^^           
The drive is SATA 3 capable.


> Standards:
>         Used: unknown (minor revision code 0xffff)
>         Supported: 11 10 9 8 7 6 5
>         Likely used: 11
> Configuration:
>         Logical         max     current
>         cylinders       16383   16383
>         heads           16      16
>         sectors/track   63      63
>         --
>         CHS current addressable sectors:    16514064
>         LBA    user addressable sectors:   268435455
>         LBA48  user addressable sectors: 39063650304
>         Logical  Sector size:                   512 bytes [ Supported:
> 512 4096 ]
>         Physical Sector size:                  4096 bytes
>         Logical Sector-0 offset:                  0 bytes
>         device size with M = 1024*1024:    19074048 MBytes
>         device size with M = 1000*1000:    20000588 MBytes (20000 GB)
>         cache/buffer size  = unknown
>         Form Factor: 3.5 inch
>         Nominal Media Rotation Rate: 7200
> Capabilities:
>         LBA, IORDY(can be disabled)
>         Queue depth: 32
>         Standby timer values: spec'd by Standard, no device specific minimum
> R/W multiple sector transfer: Max = 16  Current = 16
>         Recommended acoustic management value: 254, current value: 0
>         DMA: mdma0 mdma1 mdma2 udma0 udma1 udma2 udma3 udma4 udma5 *udma6
>              Cycle time: min=120ns recommended=120ns
                                                                     ^^^^^
It can access the system memory as fast as it possibly gets for a spinning 
drive.


>         PIO: pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4
>              Cycle time: no flow control=120ns  IORDY flow control=120ns
> Commands/features:
>         Enabled Supported:
>            *    SMART feature set
>                 Security Mode feature set
>            *    Power Management feature set
>            *    Write cache
>            *    Look-ahead
>            *    WRITE_BUFFER command
>            *    READ_BUFFER command
>            *    DOWNLOAD_MICROCODE
>                 Power-Up In Standby feature set
>            *    SET_FEATURES required to spinup after power up
>                 SET_MAX security extension
>            *    48-bit Address feature set
>            *    Mandatory FLUSH_CACHE
>            *    FLUSH_CACHE_EXT
>            *    SMART error logging
>            *    SMART self-test
>            *    Media Card Pass-Through
>            *    General Purpose Logging feature set
>            *    WRITE_{DMA|MULTIPLE}_FUA_EXT
>            *    64-bit World wide name
>            *    IDLE_IMMEDIATE with UNLOAD
>                 Write-Read-Verify feature set
>            *    WRITE_UNCORRECTABLE_EXT command
>            *    {READ,WRITE}_DMA_EXT_GPL commands
>            *    Segmented DOWNLOAD_MICROCODE
>            *    unknown 119[6]
>            *    unknown 119[7]
>                 unknown 119[8]
>                 unknown 119[9]
>            *    Gen1 signaling speed (1.5Gb/s)
>            *    Gen2 signaling speed (3.0Gb/s)
>            *    Gen3 signaling speed (6.0Gb/s)

                                        ^^^^^^^

>            *    Native Command Queueing (NCQ)
>            *    Phy event counters
>            *    Idle-Unload when NCQ is active
>            *    READ_LOG_DMA_EXT equivalent to READ_LOG_EXT
>            *    DMA Setup Auto-Activate optimization
>                 Device-initiated interface power management
>            *    Software settings preservation
>                 unknown 78[7]
>            *    SMART Command Transport (SCT) feature set
>            *    SCT Write Same (AC2)
>            *    SCT Error Recovery Control (AC3)
>            *    SCT Features Control (AC4)
>            *    SCT Data Tables (AC5)
>                 unknown 206[7]
>                 unknown 206[12] (vendor specific)
>                 unknown 206[13] (vendor specific)
>                 unknown 206[14] (vendor specific)
>            *    SANITIZE_ANTIFREEZE_LOCK_EXT command
>            *    SANITIZE feature set
>            *    OVERWRITE_EXT command
>            *    All write cache is non-volatile
>            *    Extended number of user addressable sectors
> Security:
>         Master password revision code = 65534
>                 supported
>         not     enabled
>         not     locked
>         not     frozen
>         not     expired: security count
>                 supported: enhanced erase
>         1716min for SECURITY ERASE UNIT. 1716min for ENHANCED SECURITY
> ERASE UNIT.
> Logical Unit WWN Device Identifier: 5000c500e59b0554
>         NAA             : 5
>         IEEE OUI        : 000c50
>         Unique ID       : 0e59b0554
> Checksum: correct
> root@Gentoo-1 / #
> 
> 
> If I recall correctly, udma6 is the fastest speed.

Yes, for accessing memory (Ultra Direct Memory Access).


> So, in the end the
> drive should be connected at 6GB/sec.  Right?  

Yep, the "SATA Rev 3.0" transport capability means it can achieve 6Gbps when 
connected to a compatible SATA controller.

Your dmesg will confirm it has been able to achieve this when it was detected 
by the kernel.


> Also, do you see anything
> else in there that would concern you?  I'm also going to include the
> output of smartctl -a for it as well. 

From a cursory look I can't see anything wrong.


> root@Gentoo-1 / # smartctl -a /dev/sdb
> smartctl 7.4 2023-08-01 r5530 [x86_64-linux-6.9.10-gentoo] (local build)
> Copyright (C) 2002-23, Bruce Allen, Christian Franke, www.smartmontools.org
> 
> === START OF INFORMATION SECTION ===
> Model Family:     Seagate Exos X20
> Device Model:     ST20000NM007D-3DJ103
> Serial Number:   :-D :-D :-D
> LU WWN Device Id: 5 000c50 0e59b0554
> Firmware Version: SN05
> User Capacity:    20,000,588,955,648 bytes [20.0 TB]
> Sector Sizes:     512 bytes logical, 4096 bytes physical
> Rotation Rate:    7200 rpm
> Form Factor:      3.5 inches
> Device is:        In smartctl database 7.3/5671
> ATA Version is:   ACS-4 (minor revision not indicated)
> SATA Version is:  SATA 3.3, 6.0 Gb/s (current: 6.0 Gb/s)
                                                 ^^^^^^^^
Yes, it is connected at SATA 3 speeds.  The SATA Revision 3.3 indicates an era 
of manufacture of >=2016.


> Local Time is:    Mon May 12 03:05:08 2025 CDT
> SMART support is: Available - device has SMART capability.
> SMART support is: Enabled
> 
> === START OF READ SMART DATA SECTION ===
> SMART overall-health self-assessment test result: PASSED
[snip ...]

> SMART Attributes Data Structure revision number: 10
> Vendor Specific SMART Attributes with Thresholds:
> ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME          FLAG     VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE     
> UPDATED  WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE
>   1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate     0x000f   083   079   044    Pre-fail 
> Always       -       0/223644630
>   3 Spin_Up_Time            0x0003   091   091   000    Pre-fail 
> Always       -       0
>   4 Start_Stop_Count        0x0032   100   100   020    Old_age  
> Always       -       12
>   5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct   0x0033   100   100   010    Pre-fail 
> Always       -       0
>   7 Seek_Error_Rate         0x000f   071   060   045    Pre-fail 
> Always       -       0/12784911
>   9 Power_On_Hours          0x0032   100   100   000    Old_age  
> Always       -       36
>  10 Spin_Retry_Count        0x0013   100   100   097    Pre-fail 
> Always       -       0
>  12 Power_Cycle_Count       0x0032   100   100   020    Old_age  
> Always       -       12
>  18 Head_Health             0x000b   100   100   050    Pre-fail 
> Always       -       0
> 187 Reported_Uncorrect      0x0032   100   100   000    Old_age  
> Always       -       0
> 188 Command_Timeout         0x0032   100   100   000    Old_age  
> Always       -       0 0 0
> 190 Airflow_Temperature_Cel 0x0022   071   049   000    Old_age  
> Always       -       29 (Min/Max 24/29)
> 192 Power-Off_Retract_Count 0x0032   100   100   000    Old_age  
> Always       -       5
> 193 Load_Cycle_Count        0x0032   100   100   000    Old_age  
> Always       -       13
> 194 Temperature_Celsius     0x0022   029   048   000    Old_age  
> Always       -       29 (0 22 0 0 0)
> 197 Current_Pending_Sector  0x0012   100   100   000    Old_age  
> Always       -       0
> 198 Offline_Uncorrectable   0x0010   100   100   000    Old_age  
> Offline      -       0
> 199 UDMA_CRC_Error_Count    0x003e   200   200   000    Old_age  
> Always       -       15
> 200 Pressure_Limit          0x0023   100   100   001    Pre-fail 
> Always       -       0
> 240 Head_Flying_Hours       0x0000   100   100   000    Old_age  
> Offline      -       35h+57m+09.784s
> 241 Total_LBAs_Written      0x0000   100   253   000    Old_age  
> Offline      -       46594603
> 242 Total_LBAs_Read         0x0000   100   253   000    Old_age  
> Offline      -       3602490543
> 
> SMART Error Log Version: 1
> No Errors Logged

I can't see anything wrong with this drive, but Seagate's raw numbers always 
confused me.  I mean, as an example Raw_Read_Error_Rate shows 0/223644630.  
:-/

Is this a ratio, does it mean 0 out of 22364463 read attempts?  Or should it 
be read as 0x223644630, in which case it would be 2 errors in 593,774,128 
operations?

https://www.disktuna.com/big-scary-raw-s-m-a-r-t-values-arent-always-bad-news/
#0x223644630

Or does it mean 223644630 were recorded in the past and 0 were recorded since 
the smart data were zeroed out as part of the refurbishment?  I don't know.

More here:  

https://forums.unraid.net/topic/86337-are-my-smart-reports-bad/#comment-800888

Either way, the normalised values make more sense, whereby the current 
Raw_Read_Error_Rate is 083, the worst its been is 079 and both are well above 
a failure threshold of 044.

The critical attributes of reallocated sectors, uncorrectable errors and the 
like all show zero, indicating a healthy drive.

Interestingly, the UDMA_CRC_Error_Count shows 15.  Typically this indicates a 
dodgy cable.  I had asked if you tried a different cable/SATA port when you 
first posted about this drive.  If these errors crept up since you bought the 
drive, this is an indication of some bits flipping and then being corrected in 
the journey between the drive and the SATA controller.  I would have certainly 
suggested you try another cable if I had seen this error correction count 
upfront.  Keep an eye on it and if it keeps going up, then definitely replace 
the cable to see if it makes a difference.

Note, if the Helium was leaking from the drive casing, attribute 200 would 
show 'failed', but it shows 0.


> I'm thinking about adding this to my backup drive set.  With this
> addition, I can have one backup for all my videos instead of breaking it
> into two pieces. 
> 
> Any concerns with the data you see?  Would you be OK using this drive? 

I don't want to say go ahead, only for the drive to fail when you come to rely 
on it.  Knowing it's a refurbished drive, it takes time to spin up, but shows 
no errors, I would use it in a non-critical operational setup and keep an eye 
on it for a while, but that's just me.  I've had drives with critical errors 
on them and have been waiting for them to fail for years now.  I'm still 
waiting ...  ;-)


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] New hard drive. Is this normal? It looks like a connect problem.

[Dale]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2458 bytes --]

Michael wrote:
> On Monday, 12 May 2025 09:11:54 British Summer Time Dale wrote:
>
>> I'm thinking about adding this to my backup drive set.  With this
>> addition, I can have one backup for all my videos instead of breaking it
>> into two pieces. 
>>
>> Any concerns with the data you see?  Would you be OK using this drive? 
> I don't want to say go ahead, only for the drive to fail when you come to rely 
> on it.  Knowing it's a refurbished drive, it takes time to spin up, but shows 
> no errors, I would use it in a non-critical operational setup and keep an eye 
> on it for a while, but that's just me.  I've had drives with critical errors 
> on them and have been waiting for them to fail for years now.  I'm still 
> waiting ...  ;-)
>

I use this command to check the important stuff. 


smartctl -a /dev/sdX | egrep
'(^ID|Reallocated_Sector_Ct|Reported_Uncorrectable_Er|Command_Timeout|Current_Pending_Sector|Offline_Uncorrectable)'


Just replace the X with correct drive device.  For the 20TB drive, that
shows this.


root@Gentoo-1 / # smartctl -a /dev/sdb | egrep
'(^ID|Reallocated_Sector_Ct|Reported_Uncorrectable_Er|Command_Timeout|Current_Pending_Sector|Offline_Uncorrectable)'
ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME          FLAG     VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE     
UPDATED  WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE
  5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct   0x0033   100   100   010    Pre-fail 
Always       -       0
188 Command_Timeout         0x0032   100   100   000    Old_age  
Always       -       0 0 0
197 Current_Pending_Sector  0x0012   100   100   000    Old_age  
Always       -       0
198 Offline_Uncorrectable   0x0010   100   100   000    Old_age  
Offline      -       0
root@Gentoo-1 / #


From what I've read, when those show zeros, it is a good drive. 

I'm going to do some more testing first but I think this drive is OK. 
To be honest, I can't tell that in connects any slower than any other
drive, regardless of size or age.  I tend to give a hard drive, or set
of hard drives for LVM setups, at least a minute to spin up and connect
before I try to mount them anyway.  If the drive does take a few extra
seconds to connect at full speed, I'll never notice it in real world use
even if the kernel does. 

Now to tackle that 8TB SMR drive.  I think it is sick, or something.  I
don't like that drive anyway.  LOL 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3475 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] New hard drive. Is this normal? It looks like a connect problem.

[Frank Steinmetzger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2531 bytes --]

Am Wed, May 07, 2025 at 09:18:16AM +0100 schrieb Michael:
> On Wednesday, 7 May 2025 00:30:34 British Summer Time Dale wrote:
> > […]
> > I ran a hdparm test.  I wanted to see as accurately as I could what the
> > speed was.  I got this.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > root@nas ~ # hdparm -tT /dev/sdb
> > 
> > /dev/sdb:
> >  Timing cached reads:   7106 MB in  2.00 seconds = 3554.48 MB/sec
> 
> These are rather pedestrian ^^^^ but I do not have any drives as large as 
> yours to compare.  A 4G drive here shows this:
> 
> ~ # hdparm -tT /dev/sda
> 
> /dev/sda:
>  Timing cached reads:   52818 MB in  1.99 seconds = 26531.72 MB/sec
>  Timing buffered disk reads: 752 MB in  3.00 seconds = 250.45 MB/sec
> 
> That's an order of magnitude higher cached reads.

So you have a faster machine, possibly DDR5. Dale’s NAS is an old build. 
That’s why it’s called cached.

From the manpage of hdparm: This measurement [of -T] is essentially an 
indication of the throughput of the processor, cache, and memory of the 
system under test. This displays the speed of reading directly from the 
Linux buffer cache without disk access.
-------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The output of -t is the actual physical bandwidth. And for a big current 
haddrive, 250 MB/s is a decent normal value.


For comparison, this is from a nice SATA SSD (Crucial BX100 512 GB) on a 
passive MiniPC with Celeron N5100 and DDR4 RAM (Zotac ZBox Nano CI331):

root@schatulle ~ # hdparm -Tt /dev/sda

/dev/sda:
 Timing cached reads:   10950 MB in  2.00 seconds = 5480.12 MB/sec
 Timing buffered disk reads: 1602 MB in  3.00 seconds = 533.56 MB/sec


As you can see, the SSD is almost at the practical limit of SATA 3, which is 
600 MB/s. Wikipedia: Third-generation SATA interfaces run with a native 
transfer rate of 6.0 Gbit/s; taking 8b/10b encoding into account, the 
maximum uncoded transfer rate is 4.8 Gbit/s (600 MB/s). 

> >  Timing buffered disk reads: 802 MB in  3.00 seconds = 267.03 MB/sec
> > root@nas ~ #
> > 
> > 
> > From what I've seen of other drives, that appears to be SATA 3 or the
> > faster speed.  So, it is slow to respond but connects and works fine. 

SATA2 runs at half of SATA3, at 300 MB/s. So even if your drive ran at 
SATA2, you wouldn’t notice any impact in performance.

-- 
Grüße | Greetings | Salut | Qapla’
Please do not share anything from, with or about me on any social network.

How can I know what I’m thinking before I hear what I’m saying?

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] New hard drive. Is this normal? It looks like a connect problem.

[Dale]

Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> Am Wed, May 07, 2025 at 09:18:16AM +0100 schrieb Michael:
>> On Wednesday, 7 May 2025 00:30:34 British Summer Time Dale wrote:
>>> […]
>>> I ran a hdparm test.  I wanted to see as accurately as I could what the
>>> speed was.  I got this.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> root@nas ~ # hdparm -tT /dev/sdb
>>>
>>> /dev/sdb:
>>>  Timing cached reads:   7106 MB in  2.00 seconds = 3554.48 MB/sec
>> These are rather pedestrian ^^^^ but I do not have any drives as large as 
>> yours to compare.  A 4G drive here shows this:
>>
>> ~ # hdparm -tT /dev/sda
>>
>> /dev/sda:
>>  Timing cached reads:   52818 MB in  1.99 seconds = 26531.72 MB/sec
>>  Timing buffered disk reads: 752 MB in  3.00 seconds = 250.45 MB/sec
>>
>> That's an order of magnitude higher cached reads.
> So you have a faster machine, possibly DDR5. Dale’s NAS is an old build. 
> That’s why it’s called cached.
>
> From the manpage of hdparm: This measurement [of -T] is essentially an 
> indication of the throughput of the processor, cache, and memory of the 
> system under test. This displays the speed of reading directly from the 
> Linux buffer cache without disk access.
> -------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> The output of -t is the actual physical bandwidth. And for a big current 
> haddrive, 250 MB/s is a decent normal value.
>
>
> For comparison, this is from a nice SATA SSD (Crucial BX100 512 GB) on a 
> passive MiniPC with Celeron N5100 and DDR4 RAM (Zotac ZBox Nano CI331):
>
> root@schatulle ~ # hdparm -Tt /dev/sda
>
> /dev/sda:
>  Timing cached reads:   10950 MB in  2.00 seconds = 5480.12 MB/sec
>  Timing buffered disk reads: 1602 MB in  3.00 seconds = 533.56 MB/sec
>
>
> As you can see, the SSD is almost at the practical limit of SATA 3, which is 
> 600 MB/s. Wikipedia: Third-generation SATA interfaces run with a native 
> transfer rate of 6.0 Gbit/s; taking 8b/10b encoding into account, the 
> maximum uncoded transfer rate is 4.8 Gbit/s (600 MB/s). 
>
>>>  Timing buffered disk reads: 802 MB in  3.00 seconds = 267.03 MB/sec
>>> root@nas ~ #
>>>
>>>
>>> From what I've seen of other drives, that appears to be SATA 3 or the
>>> faster speed.  So, it is slow to respond but connects and works fine. 
> SATA2 runs at half of SATA3, at 300 MB/s. So even if your drive ran at 
> SATA2, you wouldn’t notice any impact in performance.
>


I have since did some more testing on this.  I ran the hdparm -t on
other drives on this same rig.  AM4 with AMD Ryzen 7 5800X and 128GBs of
G.SKILL DDR4.  Some of the hard drives are connected to PCIe SATA
adapter cards.  They pretty fast.  So far, the one with the fastest data
speed is the 20TB drive.  They look something like this. 


root@Gentoo-1 / # hdparm -t /dev/sdb

/dev/sdb:
 Timing buffered disk reads: 816 MB in  3.00 seconds = 271.83 MB/sec
root@Gentoo-1 / # hdparm -t /dev/sdc

/dev/sdc:
 Timing buffered disk reads: 576 MB in  3.01 seconds = 191.62 MB/sec
root@Gentoo-1 / # hdparm -t /dev/sdd

/dev/sdd:
 Timing buffered disk reads: 808 MB in  3.01 seconds = 268.87 MB/sec
root@Gentoo-1 / # hdparm -t /dev/sde

/dev/sde:
 Timing buffered disk reads: 730 MB in  3.01 seconds = 242.69 MB/sec
root@Gentoo-1 / # hdparm -t /dev/sdf

/dev/sdf:
 Timing buffered disk reads: 658 MB in  3.00 seconds = 219.30 MB/sec
root@Gentoo-1 / #


So, comparison of speed shows the 20TB is a little faster but sdd is
pretty darn close, a 16TB drive.  I currently have the drive in a
external enclosure that has a fan.  I have another drive in the exact
same model of enclosure.  The one with the 20TB drive runs at around 90F
and the fan spins faster.  The other enclosure with a older 6TB drive
runs at 87F with a slightly lower fan RPM.  The fans are temp
controlled.  So the 20TB runs a little warmer, about 3 degrees F
warmer.  It could be that it just has extra stuff packed in there and
that is normal or could it be that a little bit of the helium has
already got away.  Maybe??  Keep in mind, SMART showed a power up time
of only 2 hours when I first connected the drive.  Unless they can reset
the power on hours somehow, it should be a new drive.  It may have sat
on a shelf somewhere for no telling how long tho. 

In this newer enclosure, it seems to end up running at full speed,
despite the slow to respond and other info in the logs.  It concerns me
that it is slow to respond but it seems to work just fine once it gets
spun up and connects properly. 

I also found a option for smartctl that is interesting.  I checked the
output of SMART with the -x option.  It seems to include a lot of
different info than -a.  It is supposed to work better on m.2 sticks I
think but I haven't tested it yet.  I might add the -I option for hdparm
is also nice.  I think Michael mentioned it.  Some who are reading this
may want to check those options for those commands.  It may display info
that comes in handy. 

Over the past few weeks, I've ordered two 16TB drives and this 20TB
drive.  I may put this 20TB in my backup drive set.  It currently has
almost 40TBs of storage.  I have to split my video collection into two
pieces right now.  With this, I could have one large data backup drive
set instead of two sets.  I'd also have more room.  I could swap one of
the smaller drives to and have another backup of things like family pics
and such.  I haven't nailed down what I want to do yet.  I want to do it
right the first time.  ;-)  Oh, the second 16TB drive seems to have got
lost.  UPS tracking page says to file a claim.  Then it sent a text
update that it will be here tomorrow but doesn't show the box has moved
since it got lost.  I dunno when it will get here.  Maybe one of these
days. 

Right now I'm having discussions with that old 8TB SMR drive.  When I
try to update the backup data, it remounts read only and then I have to
unmount and remount.  I've ran fsck on it and it did do the usual fixes
but didn't report anything bad.  It also passes all the SMART tests,
short and long.  To test, I'm running defrag on the thing, it is at 20%
fragmentation so it couldn't hurt.  That should make it rewrite a fair
amount of data and see if it stays in write mode or goes to read only
again.  Doing this test on the NAS box in case it might be a cable or
machine problem, just to be sure. 

I think in the meantime, I'm going to avoid 20TB drives, unless it is
one heck of a deal.  I like the extra space but don't like odd log
messages. 

Now let us pray.  :/ 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] New hard drive. Is this normal? It looks like a connect problem.

[Michael]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1858 bytes --]

On Monday, 12 May 2025 23:34:36 British Summer Time Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> Am Wed, May 07, 2025 at 09:18:16AM +0100 schrieb Michael:
> > On Wednesday, 7 May 2025 00:30:34 British Summer Time Dale wrote:
> > > […]
> > > I ran a hdparm test.  I wanted to see as accurately as I could what the
> > > speed was.  I got this.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > root@nas ~ # hdparm -tT /dev/sdb
> > > 
> > > /dev/sdb:
> > >  Timing cached reads:   7106 MB in  2.00 seconds = 3554.48 MB/sec
> > 
> > These are rather pedestrian ^^^^ but I do not have any drives as large as
> > yours to compare.  A 4G drive here shows this:
> > 
> > ~ # hdparm -tT /dev/sda
> > 
> > /dev/sda:
> >  Timing cached reads:   52818 MB in  1.99 seconds = 26531.72 MB/sec
> >  Timing buffered disk reads: 752 MB in  3.00 seconds = 250.45 MB/sec
> > 
> > That's an order of magnitude higher cached reads.
> 
> So you have a faster machine, possibly DDR5.

Not sure if its faster, but it only has DDR4.


> Dale’s NAS is an old build.

I didn't know with certainty what PC it was connected to at the time.


> That’s why it’s called cached.
> 
> From the manpage of hdparm: This measurement [of -T] is essentially an
> indication of the throughput of the processor, cache, and memory of the
> system under test. This displays the speed of reading directly from the
> Linux buffer cache without disk access.
> -------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You are right of course, thank you for point this out.  I was wondering if the 
cached speeds may have been affected by the drive spinning down, but not 
spinning up fast enough when the test starts and this affecting the reading, 
or a bad cable.  The difference in speed looked too high to me and I was 
looking for anything pointing to a bad connection between the drive and the 
PC.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]