Jump to content

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

Photo

LCC Warning Threshold on Seagate External Drives


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 majones

majones

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 14 August 2017 - 11:03 PM

I've got a couple of worrisome Seagate 4TB Expansion drives with high (>300,000) LCC's, and I'm a bit confused that one (ST4000DM001) is shown as OK under SMART with an LCC of 444,543 and the other (ST4000DM001) has a warning with an LCC of 300,794. I see that SMART is using "non-manufacturer specific" interpretation rules for the first (higher LCC but no warning) and "Seagate Desktop HDD.15" for the second (lower LCC but with warning). I'm just wondering why the different interpretation rules, and whether LCC > 300,000 is OK for the ST4000DM001?


  • Antoineki likes this

#2 Christopher (Drashna)

Christopher (Drashna)

    Customer and Technical Support

  • Administrators
  • 8,196 posts
  • LocationSan Diego, CA, USA

Posted 15 August 2017 - 11:11 PM

Different generations of drives have different manufacturer specs/tolerances. 

 

And that's likely what is going on here.  

 

If you want, select the "submit to BitFlock" option, and post the ID here so we can take a look at the system.


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.


#3 majones

majones

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 16 August 2017 - 01:59 PM

I've made the BitFlock submission for the ST4000DM001 disk, now with an LCC of 446,079 but still no SMART warning - ID is P5TXJXU9.



#4 Christopher (Drashna)

Christopher (Drashna)

    Customer and Technical Support

  • Administrators
  • 8,196 posts
  • LocationSan Diego, CA, USA

Posted 16 August 2017 - 04:31 PM

Looking at the BitFlock data, these are definitely different generation disks.  The model numbers are slightly different, and the firmware versions are definitely different.  So they're classified as different generations/models, and are handled slightly different.

 

That's the reason for the discrepancy. 

 

 

However, let me flag this for the developer, to confirm.

 

https://stablebit.co...eAnalysis/27594


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.


#5 dbailey75

dbailey75

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 132 posts

Posted 15 September 2017 - 02:29 PM

I've got a couple of worrisome Seagate 4TB Expansion drives with high (>300,000) LCC's, and I'm a bit confused that one (ST4000DM001) is shown as OK under SMART with an LCC of 444,543 and the other (ST4000DM001) has a warning with an LCC of 300,794. I see that SMART is using "non-manufacturer specific" interpretation rules for the first (higher LCC but no warning) and "Seagate Desktop HDD.15" for the second (lower LCC but with warning). I'm just wondering why the different interpretation rules, and whether LCC > 300,000 is OK for the ST4000DM001?

something for you to think about, and it keeps your drives from going to sleep, https://keepalivehd....codeplex.com/. 

I've have some laptop grade Hitachi drives, knowing in advance that they had the same problem as the WD greens, going to sleep after a few seconds of inactivity, and with scanner pinging your drives for smart data (you can change the freqency in the settings), LCC would run up on the drives, this tool, rights a small file every few second and keeps them spinning.  After 3 years and 190 days on one drive, and 3 years 250 days on the other drive, they drives are still going strong, the drive letter was changed for one of the drives, something I did and forgot to update the tool, and the LCC is over 500K on that one, but 5347 on the other one.


  • Christopher (Drashna) likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users