Question Seagate CDI reports high number on Command Timeout but still in “Good” condition

[Danvic]

I’m curious seeing these CDI results on the google, all of them seems to be Seagate hdd and they all have high numbers on Command Timeout though all of it are still in “Good” condition. How come?

https://share.icloud.com/photos/0X4JL5p1gvoo2uLmjnQZRlGsA#Meycauayan_City

https://share.icloud.com/photos/0ptGWDVHOcSowj61smNy2wqZA#Meycauayan_City

https://share.icloud.com/photos/03xqsmdUkYOQNpO-vvjuBoL6Q#Meycauayan_City

https://share.icloud.com/photos/0VwIefVSriZbhDMZsWroJIKqg#Meycauayan_City

https://share.icloud.com/photos/0vvVuw1btByIMvq4Tt2qSyVKA#Meycauayan_City

Photos are not mine. Credits to the owners.

 

[fzabkar]

"Network unavailable or slow. iCloud Photos is taking longer to load than expected."

The raw values consist of three 16-bit hexadecimal numbers :

0001 / 0002 / 0004 -> 1 / 2 /4 (decimal)​

000C / 000C / 000C -> 12 / 12 / 12​

0000 / 0000 / 0001 -> 0 / 0 / 1​

0017 /0017 / 0019 -> 23 / 23 / 25​

​

These numbers are explained in the following document.

Seagate SMART Attribute Specification:
http://t1.daumcdn.net/brunch/service/user/axm/file/zRYOdwPu3OMoKYmBOby1fEEQEbU.pdf
http://www.hddoracle.com/download/file.php?id=5129

These numbers become a problem when the first two values are non-zero. They correspond to timeouts lasting 7 seconds. When these occur, there will be a noticeable lag.

 

[Danvic]

"Network unavailable or slow. iCloud Photos is taking longer to load than expected."

The raw values consist of three 16-bit hexadecimal numbers :

0001 / 0002 / 0004 -> 1 / 2 /4 (decimal)​

000C / 000C / 000C -> 12 / 12 / 12​

0000 / 0000 / 0001 -> 0 / 0 / 1​

0017 /0017 / 0019 -> 23 / 23 / 25​

​

These numbers are explained in the following document.

Seagate SMART Attribute Specification:
http://t1.daumcdn.net/brunch/service/user/axm/file/zRYOdwPu3OMoKYmBOby1fEEQEbU.pdf
http://www.hddoracle.com/download/file.php?id=5129

These numbers become a problem when the first two values are non-zero. They correspond to timeouts lasting 7 seconds. When these occur, there will be a noticeable lag.

I understand but why CDI still reports Command Timeout “Good” if they have a high raw values?

 

[fzabkar]

Strictly speaking, a SMART attribute is considered to have failed when its Current normalised value falls below the Threshold value. CDI and other SMART tools use their own value judgments to decide on pre-emptive warnings and cautions for certain attributes (eg reallocated and pending sectors), but it appears that Command Timeouts is not singled out for special treatment.

 

[Danvic]

Strictly speaking, a SMART attribute is considered to have failed when its Current normalised value falls below the Threshold value. CDI and other SMART tools use their own value judgments to decide on pre-emptive warnings and cautions for certain attributes (eg reallocated and pending sectors), but it appears that Command Timeouts is not singled out for special treatment.

Here is my CDI result

Command Timeout
Current Worst Threshold Raw Values
100 99 0 000000000004

https://share.icloud.com/photos/0L12WxGOzTtIHgBGEJyMuyCCQ#Meycauayan_City_-_Pandayan

Please help me interpret this.

 

[fzabkar]

It's telling you that there were 4 timeouts, and no timeout lasted longer than 5 seconds.

 

[Danvic]

It's telling you that there were 4 timeouts, and no timeout lasted longer than 5 seconds.

Is this ok? Am I in trouble?

 

[fzabkar]

I don't know how bad this is. I wouldn't like to see them on my drive, though.

You could perform a full surface scan with HDDScan. It will identify "slow" sectors, ie those which require read retries.

 

[Danvic]

I don't know how bad this is. I wouldn't like to see them on my drive, though.

You could perform a full surface scan with HDDScan. It will identify "slow" sectors, ie those which require read retries.

Thanks.

 

[Danvic]

Does Seagate report this SMART attribute Command Timout diffrently from other brands?

 

[fzabkar]

Does Seagate report this SMART attribute Command Timout diffrently from other brands?

Yes, Seagate appears to do this their own way.

 

[Danvic]

Yes, Seagate appears to do this their own way.

So for them high numbers of Raw Values are "Good" results while for some other brands high numbers of Raw Values are "Bad" results? Is that it?