Jump to content
Covecube Inc.
  • Announcements

    • Christopher (Drashna)

      Login issues   11/07/17

      If you have issues with logging in, make sure you use your display name and not the "username" or email.  Or head here for more info.   http://community.covecube.com/index.php?/topic/3252-login-issues/  
    • Christopher (Drashna)

      Getting Help   11/07/17

      If you're experiencing problems with the software, the best way to get ahold of us is to head to https://stablebit.com/Contact, especially if this is a licensing issue.    Issues submitted there are checked first, and handled more aggressively. So, especially if the problem is urgent, please head over there first. 
Grant

Incorrect (I think) warning for Mushkin SSD

Recommended Posts

I have a Mushkin Enhanced ECO2 (Model MKNSSDEC240GB) SSD.  Brand new, has been powered on for 3 hours.

 

Stablebit scanner giving me warnings for Soft Read Error Rate.  But I don't think that the SMART data is being interpreted correctly.  Several forum posts I found seem to confirm that this is not a sign the drive is failing, just normal values for this model.

 

Using CrystalDiskInfo, I see that attributes 01 (Raw Read Error Rate), C3 (On-the-fly ECC Uncorrectable Error Count), C9 (Uncorrectable Soft Read Error Rate) and CC (Soft ECC Correction Rate) all show the same value, which keeps increasing every time I refresh.

 

Tried with 2.5.1.3062 and beta 2.5.2.3103, get the same results.  It says that it is using non-manufacturer specific interpretation rules.

 

I have submitted it to Bitflock - ID 67QSGP8S

 

Some other forums say that it is just misinterpreting the data from this particular SSD (because everyone decided to use different attributes and values for their SSDs. Just to make life more interesting).

 

See the posts by MushkinSean at these links:



 

I'm guessing you guys just need to figure out the right way to interpret the data from this particular SSD?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the drive is using the "non-manufacturer specific interpretation rules", then yes, more than likely it's an issue with parsing the information properly.

 

SSDs are very bad about using proprietary interpretations or non-standard reporting.   That's why we have rules in the first place.

 

Thank you for grabbing the BitFlock ID already. 

 

I've flagged this for Alex (the developer) so he can take a look at it, and fix this.

https://stablebit.com/Admin/IssueAnalysis/26053

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×