Jump to content

  • Log in with Twitter Log in with Windows Live Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Photo

Smart check not accessible - Proliant Gen8 Microserver

smart check not accessible smartctl fine help

  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#21 Christopher (Drashna)

Christopher (Drashna)

    Customer and Technical Support

  • Administrators
  • 8,208 posts
  • LocationSan Diego, CA, USA

Posted 12 November 2015 - 06:49 PM

Just in case, could you try the latest beta build of StableBit Scanner and see if that helps?

http://dl.covecube.c...2.3109_BETA.exe


Christopher Courtney

aka "Drashna"

Microsoft MVP for Windows Home Server 2009-2012

Lead Moderator for We Got Served

Moderator for Home Server Show

 

This is my server

 

Lots of "Other" data on your pool? Read about what it is here.


#22 psykix

psykix

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 41 posts

Posted 12 November 2015 - 06:55 PM

I've just tried it. SMART still not passed through :-(



#23 Pichu0102

Pichu0102

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts

Posted 12 November 2015 - 06:58 PM

Just in case, could you try the latest beta build of StableBit Scanner and see if that helps?

http://dl.covecube.c...2.3109_BETA.exe

Still nothing.

Attached Thumbnails

  • screenshot.2261.png


#24 mr_yellow

mr_yellow

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 34 posts

Posted 07 December 2015 - 06:07 PM

If I could interject here, I have an HP Gen8 Server (ML310e) running the same B120i controller and it is possible to run that controller in straight ACHI mode.  It allows all the SMART metrics to pass through with the default settings in Stablebit Scanner.    I have 4 Drives plugged in right now and they all report back without issues.  If OP is running a single drive RAID volume, maybe it's worth it to just switch to ACHI.

 

I also had similar issues with getting SMART data from a USB enclosure.  I just assumed it was a limitation of the USB.  What's weird is that I can plug the same enclosure via eSATA and I can get SMART data coming back with that...   I'm going to read through this thread a little closer and see if I can get SMART via USB again.



#25 psykix

psykix

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 41 posts

Posted 07 December 2015 - 06:12 PM

AHCI is not an option with ESXi though. It just doesn't work reliably. SMART works just fine in AHCI mode, we know that, the issue is getting it to work in RAID mode :-)

#26 jonww74

jonww74

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 22 February 2016 - 01:29 PM

I'm also trying to get the SMART data working on my Gen8, was there any update on this?

 

I spent quite sometime getting my microserver setup to use RAID0 rather than AHCI so really do not want to have to go back.

 

Cheers.



#27 Christopher (Drashna)

Christopher (Drashna)

    Customer and Technical Support

  • Administrators
  • 8,208 posts
  • LocationSan Diego, CA, USA

Posted 22 February 2016 - 08:02 PM

I'm also trying to get the SMART data working on my Gen8, was there any update on this?

 

I spent quite sometime getting my microserver setup to use RAID0 rather than AHCI so really do not want to have to go back.

 

Cheers.

If you're using RAID, and especially if the disks are in a RAID array, then no. Sorry. 


Christopher Courtney

aka "Drashna"

Microsoft MVP for Windows Home Server 2009-2012

Lead Moderator for We Got Served

Moderator for Home Server Show

 

This is my server

 

Lots of "Other" data on your pool? Read about what it is here.


#28 jonww74

jonww74

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 23 February 2016 - 10:27 AM

I see that HDSentinel can read the SMART data okay from all of the disks though, so it does seem possible.



#29 Christopher (Drashna)

Christopher (Drashna)

    Customer and Technical Support

  • Administrators
  • 8,208 posts
  • LocationSan Diego, CA, USA

Posted 23 February 2016 - 07:22 PM

I see that HDSentinel can read the SMART data okay from all of the disks though, so it does seem possible.

That's because HDSentinel is querying the RAID controller directly, using proprietary commands, with no regards to the volumes that exist on the RAID array. 

 

Part of the issue is that we don't really like using proprietary commands like this, as it can cause issues if they're not issued correctly. And I've personally seen HDSentinel cause a system to become unstable when used.

 

Additionally, because of how we display the disks, we would need to identify which physical disks belonged to a "logical" disk (aka RAID array), and then we'd have to figure out a way to meaningfully display the SMART (and other, if accessible) data, as well as identify which disks belong to which array. 

 

Because our primary concern is the surface scans, this means that the actual disk/array presented to the OS is the primary concern. 


Christopher Courtney

aka "Drashna"

Microsoft MVP for Windows Home Server 2009-2012

Lead Moderator for We Got Served

Moderator for Home Server Show

 

This is my server

 

Lots of "Other" data on your pool? Read about what it is here.


#30 jonww74

jonww74

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 24 February 2016 - 11:21 AM

I appreciate that you have your reasons on what to support or not, it's just a shame that all my main drives don't get the monitoring I was expecting.

 

Regarding the disk display, in this case there is only one physical disk per array so identifying and displaying wouldn't be an issue.

 

Thanks for the response though, I'm glad to see a support forum actually supporting :)


  • Christopher (Drashna) likes this

#31 Christopher (Drashna)

Christopher (Drashna)

    Customer and Technical Support

  • Administrators
  • 8,208 posts
  • LocationSan Diego, CA, USA

Posted 24 February 2016 - 09:17 PM

I appreciate that you have your reasons on what to support or not, it's just a shame that all my main drives don't get the monitoring I was expecting.

 

Regarding the disk display, in this case there is only one physical disk per array so identifying and displaying wouldn't be an issue.

 

Thanks for the response though, I'm glad to see a support forum actually supporting :)

 

Well, to be honest, this has been a frequently brought up topic, that we do plan on addressing in the future. Unfortunately, I don't have an ETA for this.

 

However, Storage Spaces disks are affected by this issue as well. We can "see" them, but presenting the information in a useful manner suffers from the same issues.  It will (at best) take a significant rewrite to the code to properly address this (both the backend, and the UI), so it's not a minor thing to implement. 

But it's definitely been on our mind. 

 

 

And you're very welcome. :)


Christopher Courtney

aka "Drashna"

Microsoft MVP for Windows Home Server 2009-2012

Lead Moderator for We Got Served

Moderator for Home Server Show

 

This is my server

 

Lots of "Other" data on your pool? Read about what it is here.


#32 Krisp

Krisp

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 23 June 2017 - 12:53 AM

Any update? Scanner still does not see any underlying Storage Spaces disk. This is making me slowly moving away from Stablebit products due to lack of any progress in development.



#33 Christopher (Drashna)

Christopher (Drashna)

    Customer and Technical Support

  • Administrators
  • 8,208 posts
  • LocationSan Diego, CA, USA

Posted 23 June 2017 - 08:19 PM

Sorry, no, not yet.

 

But Alex (the Developer) is currently going through our backlog of StableBit DrivePool issues.  Once he's done with that, the plan is to then go through the StableBit Scanner issues (including the Storage Spaces request). 


Christopher Courtney

aka "Drashna"

Microsoft MVP for Windows Home Server 2009-2012

Lead Moderator for We Got Served

Moderator for Home Server Show

 

This is my server

 

Lots of "Other" data on your pool? Read about what it is here.






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: smart, check, not, accessible, smartctl, fine, help

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users