Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[BUG] smart data normalization for seagate drives result in false positives. #655

Open
krim404 opened this issue Jun 9, 2024 · 6 comments
Labels
bug Something isn't working

Comments

@krim404
Copy link

krim404 commented Jun 9, 2024

i found a minor bug: on some of my hdds the normalization of smart details gets completly wrong. Especially on Seagate Drives. In my example the number 0 gets normalized to 100 which results in a false warning.

See attached image.
Bildschirmfoto 2024-06-09 um 12 11 47

@krim404 krim404 added the bug Something isn't working label Jun 9, 2024
@krim404 krim404 changed the title [BUG] [BUG] smart data normalization for seagate drives return false positives. Jun 9, 2024
@krim404 krim404 changed the title [BUG] smart data normalization for seagate drives return false positives. [BUG] smart data normalization for seagate drives result in false positives. Jun 9, 2024
@honmashinsei
Copy link

honmashinsei commented Jun 13, 2024

same!
I'm having issues with my Seagate Ironwolf Pro 16TB (ST16000NE000-2RW103).
Other Seagate drives are fine (so far)

image
image

was supposedly fixed in v0.7.2 #527 #522 :
image

other attributes are weirding out too.
image

@sherbibv
Copy link

I also have some problems with my Seagate ST12000NM0127 12Tb drive. It's new and I get the following warnings.
image

I'm not sure what to make of it. For me it seems the 195 attribute is also parsed incorrectly.

@sixeyedfox
Copy link

having a similar issue with attribute 195 on seagate ST10000NM0046 drives.

image

image

@walduino
Copy link

Havin this issue with a ST20000NM007D-3DJ103 (Exos X20 20 TB)
image
Its the only field that goes haywire though.

@andrewvaughan
Copy link

andrewvaughan commented Sep 20, 2024

Not to pile on, but, if helpful, also experiencing this issue on my Seagate Exos X18 16TB (ST16000NM000J) drives. Running master#48feee5.

Per the Seagate SMART specification on attribute 188:

3.11 Attribute ID 188: Command Timeout Count
Normalized Command Timeout Count = 100 – Command Timeout Count .
This attribute tracks the number of command time outs as defined by an active command being interrupted by a HRESET and COMRESET or SRST or another command.

The normalized value is only computed when the number of commands is in the range 103 to 104. The CommandCount and ErroCount are cleared when Number Of Commands reaches 104. The error count used to compute normalized value is not reported in attribute Raw value. It is reported in vendor info area of Attribute sector, bytes 474:475.

If Command Timeout Count is > 99, normalize value of 1 is reported.
The initial Worst Value is set to 0xFD as a special case.

Raw Usage
Raw [1 – 0] = Total # of command timeouts, with Max hold of FFFFh
Raw [3 – 2] = Total # of commands with > 5 second completion, including those > 7.5 seconds
Raw [5 – 4] = Total # of commands with > 7.5 second completion

@oregonpillow
Copy link

oregonpillow commented Dec 12, 2024

having a similar issue with attribute 195 on seagate ST10000NM0046 drives.

same issue for me with Iron Wolf 12 drive (ST12000VN0007) 195 ("Hardware ECC Recovered") has very high value. It's also a new drive.

image

- device: /dev/sda
    type: ['jmb39x-q,3']
    commands:
      metrics_smart_args: "-v 195,raw24/raw32,Hardware_ECC_Recovered"

using 'metrics_smart_args' does not seem to do anything except break data collection for the drive, with this command set, the drive shows up but with "no data" showing, despite the same command working when running it locally outside container:

sudo smartctl -x /dev/sda -d 'jmb39x-q,3' -v '195,raw24/raw32,Hardware_ECC_Recovered'

-->
...
"95 Hardware_ECC_Recovered  -O-RC-   039   003   000    -    0/9713321"

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

7 participants