Samsung Spinpoint F4EG HD204UI 2TB compatibility?

[Ghostlink]

I think you have to look at Spin up raw data and not at "spin up worst". However, I also have
the feeling that it is not functioning 100 percent when "listening" to the noise the harddisks
make.

Raw value on Spinup is measuring the startup time in milliseconds.
When worse goes below 25 (threshold) you get the warning.
When current value goes below 25 you get the failing warning.
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31364

[izit]

Hello,

I got a DS411+ and 4 HD204UI drives (01/2011 build date) 10 days ago - I installed all four and DSM3.1 beta (since upgraded to the official release the day after availability) and set them up in RAID5. All seems fine, only thing is the "multi zone error rate" raw data which seems to be increasing on the first drive (the raw data for the first one is 15 - it was 8 the first day after I moved 1 TB of files, then it went to 13 after another big file copy, then raised to 15 after some other operation -, the other 3 have 1, seemingly steady). Do you think it is a cause of concern? I wouldn't think so, but I would like to know about your experience.

thanks,
all the best
izit

[xcopy]

Hello,

I got a DS411+ and 4 HD204UI drives (01/2011 build date) 10 days ago - I installed all four and DSM3.1 beta (since upgraded to the official release the day after availability) and set them up in RAID5. All seems fine, only thing is the "multi zone error rate" raw data which seems to be increasing on the first drive (the raw data for the first one is 15 - it was 8 the first day after I moved 1 TB of files, then it went to 13 after another big file copy, then raised to 15 after some other operation -, the other 3 have 1, seemingly steady). Do you think it is a cause of concern? I wouldn't think so, but I would like to know about your experience.

thanks,
all the best
izit

As the owner of 5 failed Samsung F4 drives, if the count increases anymore I know I would be concerned, regardless of the build date. It may just be a bad disk, which is all too common these days.

Here's a little info in case you haven't looked it up.


Attribute Name: Write Error Rate (Multi Zone Error Rate)
Attribute ID: 200
Attribute meaning: Write data errors rate. This attribute indicates the total number of errors found when writing a sector. The higher the raw value, the worse the disk surface condition and/or mechanical subsystem is.

[izit]

Here's a little info in case you haven't looked it up.

Thanks for your reply - indeed I am slightly concerned, I will keep an eye to the evolution of the drive (yep I had looked it up, guess I'll just have to wait until it fails, all other SMART parameters are zero or, if not, are how I'd expect them to be). I will probably run the extended SMART test.


thanks again
izit

[mark]

let us know what the result of the extended smart test is.

[fordperf]

I had already patched my samsung drives when running DSM 3.0, now I installed 3.1 and suddenly it's telling me I need to patch my drives.

Is there another patch that I missed?? Or is 3.1 just recognizing that I have drives installed that MIGHT need to be patched?

[drasar]

Or is 3.1 just recognizing that I have drives installed that MIGHT need to be patched?

Yes. I think that the DSM cannot recognize if the HDD is already patched or not, so it prints out that warning and disables the disk cache as a prevention.

[aznriceboy1000]

I did the same thing. I updated the F4EG firmware on my drive before putting in the 211j, worked fine on Diskstation 3.0, but then I upgraded to Diskstation 3.1 and I get the warning message about write cache disabled. Is it safe to turn it back on if we already updated the firmware? I too am wondering if it just displays that warning if it detects the Samsung F4.

[wpwood3]

Or is 3.1 just recognizing that I have drives installed that MIGHT need to be patched?

I never got the warning when I upgraded to DSM 3.1. My drives are dated 12-2010.

Maybe DSM looks at drive model (HD204UI) and also looks at the serial number range. Those within the serial number range: xxxxxxxZ7xxxxx, xxxxxxxZ8xxxxx,xxxxxxxZ9xxxxx,xxxxxxxZAxxxxx, or xxxxxxxZBxxxxx cause the warning message to appear. I doubt DSM can tell if the drive has been patched so it issues the warning just in case. I'm just guessing...

[izit]

let us know what the result of the extended smart test is.

Done: Multi Zone Error had raised to 18 yesterday evening (this happened while I was deleting some stuff I copied to try system performance). Load Retry Count has raised to 1. Calibration Retry Count is now 1. I think the values are hinting at some mechanical problem, probably a slight one but still a problem. I'll see if it gets worse over time.

best,
izit

[xcopy]

Or is 3.1 just recognizing that I have drives installed that MIGHT need to be patched?

I never got the warning when I upgraded to DSM 3.1. My drives are dated 12-2010.

Maybe DSM looks at drive model (HD204UI) and also looks at the serial number range. Those within the serial number range: xxxxxxxZ7xxxxx, xxxxxxxZ8xxxxx,xxxxxxxZ9xxxxx,xxxxxxxZAxxxxx, or xxxxxxxZBxxxxx cause the warning message to appear. I doubt DSM can tell if the drive has been patched so it issues the warning just in case. I'm just guessing...

there's no way for Syno to know what has and has not been patched. Unless Samsung provided them with some secret info, there was no firmware number change so the drives look identical. I also highly doubt that DSM looks at a SN range. What if Syno got it wrong? Samsung was about as forthcoming with information as a prisoner being held at gun point, and their handling of the bugs and subsequent information release has been pathetic, and that's being polite.

Who knows what Samsung did, exactly when the firmware change was made vis-a-vis the manufacturing line, whether it fixed one problem, two problems, or simply created new problems? If syno were to program something specific into their software for a clumsy error made by another vendor, I'd be surprised, and extremely disappointed.

I'm watching this closely. So far, I'm not sure about putting my two new F4 drives in a DS yet. Until I see an answer to this problem, I think I'll wait a while longer.

[mark]

@xcopy:

But wpwood3 says: I never got the warning when I upgraded to DSM 3.1. My drives are dated 12-2010.

Then how would you explain that wpwood3 does not get the warning?

I got the warning when upgrading to DSM 3.1 and my harddisks were already patched.
But I have the harddisks manufactured aug-2010.

The HD204UI shows up in the Synology compatibility list now with a remark about the
serial numbers.

To me, the explanation from wpwood3 sounds reasonable.

[xcopy]

@xcopy:

But wpwood3 says: I never got the warning when I upgraded to DSM 3.1. My drives are dated 12-2010.

Then how would you explain that wpwood3 does not get the warning?

I got the warning when upgrading to DSM 3.1 and my harddisks were already patched.
But I have the harddisks manufactured aug-2010.

The HD204UI shows up in the Synology compatibility list now with a remark about the
serial numbers.

To me, the explanation from wpwood3 sounds reasonable.

I can't explain why some get the warning and some don't, but since I had 2 patched drives that failed - with the same symptoms and exactly like the "unpatched" drives - I have a pretty good guess why you get the warning.

I still doubt that Samsung provided anyone with a range of bad drives because if their patch really fixed the problem(s), why tell another company to watch out for, and disable features of, a slew of bad drives? Doesn't make sense to me, but we could always find out by looking at the Syno code.

[mark]

It's quite simple. The Samsung patch does not change the firmware version number. Hence, Synology does not know which
harddisks have been patched and which are not. The only way they can guess is by looking at the serial numbers.
Look at the harddisks compatibility list issued by Synology and you will understand.

[xcopy]

It's quite simple. The Samsung patch does not change the firmware version number. Hence, Synology does not know which
harddisks have been patched and which are not. The only way they can guess is by looking at the serial numbers.
Look at the harddisks compatibility list issued by Synology and you will understand.

Uhhh, OK... It's just that I'm not the one that doesn't understand......