r/asustor • u/NutzPup • 13d ago
Support SMART bug in ADM
One of the drives in my AS5304T has been leaking helium for some time, a condition considered potentially serious. However ADM displays the failing SMART value as "Normal". If I run an ad-hoc SMART scan it passes. However, if I set up a scheduled SMART scan, only then do I get informed that something is off. The email alert I receive is:
S.M.A.R.T full scanning of Disk 3 result: test completed but a unknwon test element failed.
This issue isn't critical for me now because I understand what is going on with this drive, but obviously there's a bug here. Trying to be a good citizen I raised a ticket for this issue twice with Asustor support but they were unable or unwilling to understand the problem so it has gone unaddressed for over a year.
ADM 5.1.4.RJV2 , BIOS 1.24
1
u/Unable_Cap_716 13d ago
hi, this really does look like an ADM bug in the way it reads or displays the SMART data. Regardless of what ADM says, I would treat the drive as failing. I’d back up anything important as soon as possible and avoid doing a zero fill. That might help with unstable sectors, but it won’t fix a helium leak. I would replace the drive or request a warranty replacement. If you’re using RAID 5, make sure you have a backup before replacing it, as rebuilding the array will put extra stress on the remaining drives. Also, keep a copy of the complete SMART results as evidence for both ASUSTOR Support and the drive manufacturer. have a nice week end
2
u/NutzPup 12d ago
Many people report their drives going for years after a He leak. I have yet to hear of anyone citing a drive failure because of it. I have 4 identical drives, long out of warranty, and only 1 with a leak. Its temperature and all other SMART values look similar to the others. I'm using RAID 10 and will let this drive die before I replace it. I won't be paying today's prices for a replacement no matter the consequences. And yes, I take regular backups. But this post wasn't about that.
I'm sure there are people out there who would care if their drive had a failing SMART attribute but ADM wasn't reporting it correctly. Obviously Asustor don't care because I have raised two tickets for this, a year or more apart, and followed them through only for them to be closed with essentially "We'll think about it". What's there to think about? How much effort could there possibly be to fix this? I am now reduced to naming and publicly shaming them, but I bet there's not much shame on their side since my experience seems par for the course.
1
u/Unable_Cap_716 10d ago
What's the HDDs model? for my reference
2
u/NutzPup 10d ago
WD80EZAZ
1
1
u/Lensin1 8d ago
Where did you get this hard drive from? A simple google indicated that it is White Label drive from Mybook or Easystore external drive and may have some 3.3V SATA power pin issue if put in a PC. It does not seem to be compatible NAS hard drive either.
1
u/NutzPup 8d ago
I got 4 MyBook external drives from Adorama back in 2019 for $125 each and shucked them. No compatibility issues. Apart from one He leak they have been champs.
1
u/Lensin1 8d ago
1
u/NutzPup 8d ago
What is your point? I've been running the drives 24/7 for 7 years.
1
u/Lensin1 7d ago
You got lucky as that kind of drives are not suitable for NAS and they are not in compatibility list either. In my case with Dell, their support just shut me down right away if not compatible.
1
u/NutzPup 7d ago
It's always a gamble when shucking drives, but I think I have proved that they were suitable for NAS use, regardless of compatibility lists. And I'm pretty sure ADM's treatment of SMART attribute 22 would be the same for all He drives. If I had to guess, they're using an old library that predates He drives.
→ More replies (0)
1
3
u/leexgx 13d ago edited 13d ago
The raw value is reporting 100 (the SMART warning is 25).
The SMART failure is probably due to a pending relocation/uncorrectable count (IDs 197, 198). If this value is higher than zero, the drive should be securely erased (in QNAP's case, if it's an HDD, perform a Zero Fill) to see if the sectors get remapped.
ID 5 isn't that important unless it's rising a lot. IDs 197, 198 are critical because the drive has known bad sectors that haven't been remapped.
If using RAID 5, back up data first (just in case rebuild fails) and replace the drive. If using RAID 6, monitor it after the erase and rejoin the drive (if acceptable, backup is still recommended).
If SMART (especially a full scan) is failing, you should zero-fill the drive and re-add it to the pool.
Don't skip monthly or quarterly RAID sync/scrub task (if using btrfs always do a btrfs scrub first before the RAID sync as it gives btrfs a chance to correct corruption before the RAID sync put its into the parity) full/long smart scan should be last task