Can HDTune go slower where there is data, if something's set wrong?

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Paul
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

Oh dear. But at least this one is not giving me any cause for
concern other than the HDTune graphs: if it wasn't for those, I'd
not be worried at all.

OK, found another way to do it.

I'm afraid my ability (or, perhaps, willingness) to take in the level of
detail in your instructions isn't what it was even a few years ago. I'll
have to stop asking questions here, as I don't want to put you and
others to the amount of effort you're putting in, only for me to waste
your effort by saying "that's too complicated for me".

For the moment, unless (is anyone else still reading this thread?) a
_simple_ drive health method comes to light (that actually tells me
there _is_ something wrong with my new drive), I'll just perhaps do the
two things you suggested in an earlier post: 1. do backups more often,
2. listen out for any noises.

Sorry to have wasted your time.

You have your choice of manufacturer test utilities.

Both WDC and Seagate have them. I cannot speak for all disk companies,
as I don't know if I've ever located a Toshiba support page or not.

They run the drive internal "Short" and "Long" tests. The main
output of such utilities is "go or no-go" codes - if a drive is
in need of a warranty claim, the utility will give a code that
when stated to tech support at the drive company, they will
give you an RMA number and have you send the drive back for warranty
replacement (with a recertified drive).

If the drive returns no code during that test, and the test
pases, then, enjoy your drive. No interpretation needed.

Other than HDTune, that's the only "official" test method I know
of, and it is probably tying into SMART to run the Short and Long.
It's like the program says to the drive ("SMART", "Long", RunItNow).

*******

I set up my drive for a test (the Perfmon one) and took a nap.
And here is the LibreOffice chart I got later. I'm not very
good with the LibreOffice chart settings :-) I have one
sample that's slightly off, and the rest represent the
usual measurement noise.

https://s10.postimg.org/n3bzpzvq1/500_GB_disk_plot2.gif

The best hardware combination for SATA disk test, is Win2K
driving a VIA chipset (VT8237-S Southbridge). That gives
the smoothest plots using any tool, of all the odds-n-sods
gear I've got. No idea why it works that way.

Paul

In message , Paul
writes:
[]
You have your choice of manufacturer test utilities.

Both WDC and Seagate have them. I cannot speak for all disk companies,
as I don't know if I've ever located a Toshiba support page or not.

Hmm, I might have a look to see if there's anything under HGST. Maybe
the WD one will work, as HGST is part of WD, or was at one time.
(Toshiba is only the laptop - from the Wikipedia article you gave me,
the T in HGST isn't Toshiba.)

They run the drive internal "Short" and "Long" tests. The main
output of such utilities is "go or no-go" codes - if a drive is
in need of a warranty claim, the utility will give a code that
when stated to tech support at the drive company, they will
give you an RMA number and have you send the drive back for warranty
replacement (with a recertified drive).

If the drive returns no code during that test, and the test
pases, then, enjoy your drive. No interpretation needed.

So a basic go/nogo test, with no detail.

Other than HDTune, that's the only "official" test method I know
of, and it is probably tying into SMART to run the Short and Long.
It's like the program says to the drive ("SMART", "Long", RunItNow).

I initially liked the _idea_ of HDTune, as - as you originally described
it - it gave indication of where there are bad sectors, by having
(downward) spikes in speed, that remain in the same places during two or
more runs - thus letting you know, even if the total number of bad
sectors is below the number they won't tell you about via SMART. But it
seems as if caching - or something - is preventing me doing it on the
new drive.

Have you any idea how many (or, more likely, what percentage) of spare
sectors they _do_ usually make provision for in relatively modern
drives? (I find it difficult to believe it's anything like as much/many
as 10-15%.)
*******

I set up my drive for a test (the Perfmon one) and took a nap.
And here is the LibreOffice chart I got later. I'm not very
good with the LibreOffice chart settings :-) I have one
sample that's slightly off, and the rest represent the
usual measurement noise.

https://s10.postimg.org/n3bzpzvq1/500_GB_disk_plot2.gif

I _might_ re-read your post explaining how to do that. (I've marked it
keep, anyway.) Interesting how that curve goes in steps - presumably
fewer and fewer sectors per track as the head gets closer to the middle;
but if that's the case, I'd have expected to see it on (working) HDTune
graphs too, and I haven't, when you've posted them.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"I'm a paranoid agnostic. I doubt the existence of God, but I'm sure there is
some force, somewhere, working against me." - Marc Maron

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:


I _might_ re-read your post explaining how to do that. (I've marked it
keep, anyway.) Interesting how that curve goes in steps - presumably
fewer and fewer sectors per track as the head gets closer to the middle;
but if that's the case, I'd have expected to see it on (working) HDTune
graphs too, and I haven't, when you've posted them.

Well, your drive is a scientific mystery, like BigFoot or Yeti :-)

Pretty bizarre plots, needing an explanation.

Too slow to be an SSD, too fast to be an HDD. What is it ? :-)

Paul