Post 'em if you've got 'em

>probably a WD Green
>high LCC
>non-zero read/write error rates
Better keep an eye on that one. I have a similar drive in similar condition that when scanned by HD Sentinel shows a LOT of sectors that take an abnormal amount of time to read and write, typical indicators of surface damage. No reallocations yet, just like yours, but I wouldn't rely on it.

Well, WD requires proof if you try to register a drive more than once.
Don't know about Seagate or Toshiba (I don't bother with those because they only give 2 years and my country enforces a minimum 2-year warranty from date of purchase anyway, so the seller takes the hit).

Yeah I started doing regular backups of the important stuff on it when it first started acting up. I haven't trusted it for around a year now

Found a picture. This is on a read test, so it doesn't look too bad.

Attached: WDC_WD10EARS-00Y5B1_WD-WMAV51009866_80.00A80-surface_01.jpg (1070x770, 283K)

All four of mine

Attached: crystaldisk-all-four.jpg (1350x1000, 475K)

what can you do with a "stolen" serial number?

>no Shizuku/Kei skin
dropped

Is the developer of crystal disk mark forcing these threads fags treat his faggy program like neofetch?

Is it time to retire this one?

Attached: disk.png (1017x699, 476K)

>no fail counts
>no read or uncorrectable errors
>no retired blocks
It's fine. Use it for storing apps and games, since you seem to be using something else as a system drive.

I still have a OCZ Vertex (the original SATA2 SLC drive with the Indilinx controller) that continues to work to this day. The wear leveling is rather shit, you can tell parts of the drive are slower than others, but it definitely works.

Also, change your raw values to decimal in Function > Advanced Feature > Raw Values, most are fucking unreadable in hex.

I am using it as a system drive for another system, i just unplugged it to check.
Don't question it.

>Don't question it.
I wouldn't. After all I'm doing the same with the OCZ Vertex I mentioned. It's slower than half my HDDs in sequential I/O (140MB/s or less) but the 4K performance still blows them out of the water.

Speaking of its gimped wear leveling, pic related. What the test doesn't show is the amount of times the speed dropped to less than 80MB/s.

Attached: Untitled.png (1070x1538, 150K)

Rate

Attached: ssd_linux_smart.png (1680x1050, 548K)

I really wish these programs interpreted the smart value type flags properly and stopped highlighting shit like "pre-failure". What "pre-failure" or "old age" means here is that if the current value drops below the threshold, then the device is to be considered about to fail or simply worn down. Neither applies to that drive, so why the fuck is "pre-failure" in bold?

You can really tell GSmartControl was written by freetards with no concept of proper UI design. Just dump everything on the screen like a fucking spreadsheet and call it a day. Good job.

look up who the person is in your nsa database

r8

Attached: crystaldiskinfo714.png (676x534, 61K)

Check out my host write.

Attached: Screenshot_1.jpg (998x933, 369K)

I'd be more worried about the Corsair part than the stats.
I've had a corsair SSD fail, replaced under warranty, failed again, failed a third time.

Check my hours.
If it hasn't spontaneously combusted yet, then I don't think it will.

I've still got an IBM "DeathStar" 60GXP (the one specific model that had all the problems, it's got > 150K hours on it, still in use to this day in a machine with 4.3 years of uptime currently but I ain't gonna go shell into it for S.M.A.R.T. data. Last time I checked a few years ago it had like 34 bad sectors.

Not ALL of 'em were defective, obviously.

Attached: DeathStar.jpg (480x640, 41K)

>Last time I checked a few years ago it had like 34 bad sectors.
>Not ALL of 'em were defective, obviously.

What was the point of this thread?

Attached: 9 years old.png (1582x395, 35K)

Attached: 0b386994d788cdf2c0d54a2dd9a579c5.png (669x429, 60K)

Attached: whatever.png (1174x710, 163K)

Halt, Hammerzeit.

Probably mining data on which drives are failing and what gear /gee/ uses.

Attached: s.png (634x382, 27K)

Attached: afraid.png (1920x1080, 927K)

on a side note what does "675?" mean in terms of power on count? the number is too big possibly?

Attached: Resilient SSD.png (2990x1549, 2.07M)

Western Digital Caviar SE 250GB

ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE UPDATED WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE
1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 0x000b 200 198 051 Pre-fail Always - 0
3 Spin_Up_Time 0x0007 132 118 021 Pre-fail Always - 5925
4 Start_Stop_Count 0x0032 100 100 040 Old_age Always - 453
5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct 0x0033 200 200 140 Pre-fail Always - 0
7 Seek_Error_Rate 0x000b 200 200 051 Pre-fail Always - 0
9 Power_On_Hours 0x0032 001 001 000 Old_age Always - 92156
10 Spin_Retry_Count 0x0013 100 100 051 Pre-fail Always - 0
11 Calibration_Retry_Count 0x0013 100 100 051 Pre-fail Always - 0
12 Power_Cycle_Count 0x0032 100 100 000 Old_age Always - 428
194 Temperature_Celsius 0x0022 110 094 000 Old_age Always - 40
196 Reallocated_Event_Count 0x0032 200 200 000 Old_age Always - 0
197 Current_Pending_Sector 0x0012 200 200 000 Old_age Always - 0
198 Offline_Uncorrectable 0x0012 200 200 000 Old_age Always - 0
199 UDMA_CRC_Error_Count 0x000a 200 253 000 Old_age Always - 0
200 Multi_Zone_Error_Rate 0x0009 200 200 051 Pre-fail Offline - 0

This drive keeps making popping sounds
Fuck seagate

Attached: Screenshot_20180714_225737.png (746x363, 17K)