-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 178
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
Fix parsing of attribute 188 on seagate drives #527
Conversation
Codecov Report
❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality. @@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #527 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 32.54% 30.74% -1.80%
==========================================
Files 54 29 -25
Lines 3045 2709 -336
Branches 66 0 -66
==========================================
- Hits 991 833 -158
+ Misses 2018 1846 -172
+ Partials 36 30 -6
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
|
this looks fantastic, thanks @kaysond |
return rawValue | ||
} | ||
} | ||
if int_pieces[2] >= int_pieces[1] && int_pieces[1] >= int_pieces[0] { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This logic is slightly flawed. The first number indicates total command timeouts, the second indicates all commands that took over 5 seconds to complete, and the third all commands that took over 7.5 seconds to complete.
See:
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
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's actually correct. When the string gets split, the indices are backwards from the byte order, and the int pieces variable uses that same backwards ordering
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@kaysond Thank you for the clarification!
Does this assume that you use something along the lines of this?
|
This was my error, the issue is resolved for me on the latest beta version. |
@firasdib depends. Smartctl automatically applies those arguments for seagate drives based on a few patterns. If for some reason your drive doesn't match, you'll have to add the arguments. In my case, I didn't need them |
still here, see #655 |
Fixes #522