HGST SLC vs MLC -- Weirdness

Notice: Page may contain affiliate links for which we may earn a small commission through services like Amazon Affiliates or Skimlinks.
T_Minus

T_Minus

Build. Break. Fix. Repeat
Feb 15, 2015
7,641
2,058
113
I have a # of the MLC and SLC drives sitting here for a week+ waiting for me to test them from member here and ebay, and when un packing and stacking them to get tested today I noticed the MLC drive actually weighs noticeably more than the SLC.


Decided to get out my postal scale I use for mailing and compare:

HGST 400GB SAS MLC SSD = 7.2 oz
HGST 400GB SAS SLC SSD = 5.6 oz

Why/how ?!
 
  • Like
Reactions: solaris12
T_Minus

T_Minus

Build. Break. Fix. Repeat
Feb 15, 2015
7,641
2,058
113
Formatting from 520 -> 512 on these 400GB SAS MLC drives is not a fast process! And then 45m more for LONG smart test, and I haven't even run dd or badblocks!

HGST 400GB MLC SAS #1
(This 1 is the one that had the 'failing' message during sg_format to 512 from 520)
=== START OF INFORMATION SECTION ===
Vendor: HITACHI
User Capacity: 400,088,457,216 bytes [400 GB]
Logical block size: 512 bytes
Physical block size: 4096 bytes
Lowest aligned LBA: 0
Rotation Rate: Solid State Device
Form Factor: 2.5 inches
Transport protocol: SAS
SMART support is: Available - device has SMART capability.
SMART support is: Enabled
Temperature Warning: Enabled

=== START OF READ SMART DATA SECTION ===
SMART Health Status: OK

SS Media used endurance indicator: 0%
Current Drive Temperature: 24 C
Drive Trip Temperature: 70 C

Manufactured in week 31 of year 2014
Specified cycle count over device lifetime: 0
Accumulated start-stop cycles: 0
Specified load-unload count over device lifetime: 0
Accumulated load-unload cycles: 0
Elements in grown defect list: 0

Vendor (Seagate) cache information
Blocks sent to initiator = 3016149138669568

Error counter log:
Errors Corrected by Total Correction Gigabytes Total
ECC rereads/ errors algorithm processed uncorrected
fast | delayed rewrites corrected invocations [10^9 bytes] errors
read: 0 0 0 0 0 5115.796 0
write: 0 0 0 0 0 3802.596 0
verify: 0 0 0 0 0 362.005 0

Non-medium error count: 0

SMART Self-test log
Num Test Status segment LifeTime LBA_first_err [SK ASC ASQ]
Description number (hours)
# 1 Foreground long Completed - 210 - [- - -]
Long (extended) Self Test duration: 2774 seconds [46.2 minutes]

HGST 400GB MLC SAS #2
=== START OF INFORMATION SECTION ===
Vendor: HITACHI
User Capacity: 400,088,457,216 bytes [400 GB]
Logical block size: 512 bytes
Physical block size: 4096 bytes
Lowest aligned LBA: 0
Rotation Rate: Solid State Device
Form Factor: 2.5 inches
Transport protocol: SAS
SMART support is: Available - device has SMART capability.
SMART support is: Enabled
Temperature Warning: Enabled

=== START OF READ SMART DATA SECTION ===
SMART Health Status: OK

SS Media used endurance indicator: 0%
Current Drive Temperature: 22 C
Drive Trip Temperature: 70 C

Manufactured in week 31 of year 2014
Specified cycle count over device lifetime: 0
Accumulated start-stop cycles: 0
Specified load-unload count over device lifetime: 0
Accumulated load-unload cycles: 0
Elements in grown defect list: 0

Vendor (Seagate) cache information
Blocks sent to initiator = 2740731240251392

Error counter log:
Errors Corrected by Total Correction Gigabytes Total
ECC rereads/ errors algorithm processed uncorrected
fast | delayed rewrites corrected invocations [10^9 bytes] errors
read: 0 0 0 0 0 5001.846 0
write: 0 0 0 0 0 3633.361 0
verify: 0 0 0 0 0 321.710 0

Non-medium error count: 0

SMART Self-test log
Num Test Status segment LifeTime LBA_first_err [SK ASC ASQ]
Description number (hours)
# 1 Foreground long Completed - 151 - [- - -]
Long (extended) Self Test duration: 2774 seconds [46.2 minutes]
 
Last edited:
P

pgh5278

Active Member
Oct 25, 2012
479
130
43
Australia
T_Minus said:
I have a # of the MLC and SLC drives sitting here for a week+ waiting for me to test them from member here and ebay, and when un packing and stacking them to get tested today I noticed the MLC drive actually weighs noticeably more than the SLC.


Decided to get out my postal scale I use for mailing and compare:

HGST 400GB SAS MLC SSD = 7.2 oz
HGST 400GB SAS SLC SSD = 5.6 oz

Why/how ?!
Click to expand...
are they from same year of manufacture? Could be different housing alloy?
 
T_Minus

T_Minus

Build. Break. Fix. Repeat
Feb 15, 2015
7,641
2,058
113
Have not seen these in the SMART results yet... drive 8/10 here.

=== START OF READ SMART DATA SECTION ===
SMART Health Status: OK

SS Media used endurance indicator: 0%
Current Drive Temperature: 18 C
Drive Trip Temperature: 70 C

Manufactured in week 21 of year 2013
Specified cycle count over device lifetime: 0
Accumulated start-stop cycles: 0
Specified load-unload count over device lifetime: 0
Accumulated load-unload cycles: 0
Elements in grown defect list: 0

Vendor (Seagate) cache information
Blocks sent to initiator = 5040201835479040

Error counter log:
Errors Corrected by Total Correction Gigabytes Total
ECC rereads/ errors algorithm processed uncorrected
fast | delayed rewrites corrected invocations [10^9 bytes] errors
read: 0 0 0 0 0 9426.831 0
write: 0 0 0 0 0 7075.951 0
verify: 0 0 0 0 0 1047.619 0

Non-medium error count: 0

No self-tests have been logged

Background scan results log
Status: no scans active
Accumulated power on time, hours:minutes 655:38 [39338 minutes]
Number of background scans performed: 7, scan progress: 0.00%
Number of background medium scans performed: 7

# when lba(hex) [sk,asc,ascq] reassign_status
1 238:40 000000002ae58eef [1,17,1] Reserved [0x0]
2 238:11 0000000022410c4f [1,17,1] Reserved [0x0]
3 237:53 000000001d7d01b7 [1,17,1] Reserved [0x0]
4 237:43 000000001a3f43b7 [1,17,1] Reserved [0x0]
5 237:41 00000000195e58b7 [1,17,1] Reserved [0x0]
6 237:28 0000000014220337 [1,17,1] Reserved [0x0]
7 237:16 000000000d329737 [1,17,1] Reserved [0x0]
8 237:06 00000000087db5b7 [1,17,1] Reserved [0x0]
9 236:54 0000000002c98357 [1,17,1] Reserved [0x0]
10 236:49 0000000014220337 [1,17,1] Reserved [0x0]
11 236:31 000000000d329737 [1,17,1] Reserved [0x0]
12 236:14 00000000087db5b7 [1,17,1] Reserved [0x0]
13 236:01 0000000002c98357 [1,17,1] Reserved [0x0]
14 235:57 0000000004cb5adf [1,17,1] Reserved [0x0]
15 235:53 0000000002c98357 [1,17,1] Reserved [0x0]


^-- What's that mean?
 
P

pricklypunter

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2015
1,714
520
113
Canada
The reallocated blocks? As far as I know, it only shows up when the drive has corrected errors that didn't need user intervention by reassigning blocks. Not what I would call a good sign, or maybe it is, finding it now before the disk goes into use :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: solaris12
T_Minus

T_Minus

Build. Break. Fix. Repeat
Feb 15, 2015
7,641
2,058
113
Yeah -- kind of odd all were caught right in row.. no ?

I can still RMA so, debating.

Running long smart test, then going to run badblocks and/or dd,
 
P

pricklypunter

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2015
1,714
520
113
Canada
Maybe not, if there is a failing nand chip, you may just get a burst of errors within ms of each other depending on the storage algorithm, either way, I would be moving that disk into the "not in my san" pile :)
 
T_Minus

T_Minus

Build. Break. Fix. Repeat
Feb 15, 2015
7,641
2,058
113
Yeah, running DD, smart check then bad blocks we'll see what it says :D
 
T_Minus

T_Minus

Build. Break. Fix. Repeat
Feb 15, 2015
7,641
2,058
113
- Ran DD
- No change to SMART
- Ran BadBlocks
- No change to SMART

The only change was data written.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom