- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
Detected increasing uncorrectable error count
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
I've been running WDC WD4000FYYZ-01ULB0 4TB disks in a RN516 for about three years now. Not so long ago I had the message "Detected high uncorrectable error count" on one of the disks. Hot swap and volume rebuild were successful. Now another disk is being reported as having high error count also.
"Disk: Detected high uncorrectable error count: [85] on disk 5 (Internal) [WDC WD4000FYYZ-01UL1B0, WD-WCC133921111]. This condition often indicates an impending failure. Be prepared to replace this disk to maintain data redundancy."
I've had 2 of these messages, two weeks apart. I have a replacement disk ready. My question is how worried should I be and at what error count needs the disk to be swapped?
Solved! Go to Solution.
Accepted Solutions
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
When the count starts to rise, I replace the disk. I feel uncomfortable when the counts reach 50, so I replace before then. I agree that you should have a backup too, and it is always wise to make sure your backup is up to date before manipulating hard drives, Don't do scrubs (scheduled or otherwise) with the failing drive in place.
You can (should) get an RMA from western digital - but it will not be a new drive. It will be a recertified drive, and it might not be the same model. They shouldn't downgrade you though - you should get at least a 4 TB enterprise class drive in exchange.
But I'd replace it now, using the drive you have on hand (assuming it is new and either a NAS drive or an enterprise drive). Either keep the RMA'd replacement for a spare in the future, or use it in some other system.
All Replies
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Re: Detected increasing uncorrectable error count
you should have some form of backup like having a slow nas and cheaper hard drives
80+ uncorrectable errors is just a start. i would worry if data is critical.
for those enterprise grade wd re drives the warranty is 5 years. perhaps you take it up with wd
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
When the count starts to rise, I replace the disk. I feel uncomfortable when the counts reach 50, so I replace before then. I agree that you should have a backup too, and it is always wise to make sure your backup is up to date before manipulating hard drives, Don't do scrubs (scheduled or otherwise) with the failing drive in place.
You can (should) get an RMA from western digital - but it will not be a new drive. It will be a recertified drive, and it might not be the same model. They shouldn't downgrade you though - you should get at least a 4 TB enterprise class drive in exchange.
But I'd replace it now, using the drive you have on hand (assuming it is new and either a NAS drive or an enterprise drive). Either keep the RMA'd replacement for a spare in the future, or use it in some other system.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Re: Detected increasing uncorrectable error count
@cpu8088 wrote:you should have some form of backup like having a slow nas and cheaper hard drives
80+ uncorrectable errors is just a start. i would worry if data is critical.
for those enterprise grade wd re drives the warranty is 5 years. perhaps you take it up with wd
@StephenB wrote:When the count starts to rise, I replace the disk. I feel uncomfortable when the counts reach 50, so I replace before then. I agree that you should have a backup too, and it is always wise to make sure your backup is up to date before manipulating hard drives, Don't do scrubs (scheduled or otherwise) with the failing drive in place.
You can (should) get an RMA from western digital - but it will not be a new drive. It will be a recertified drive, and it might not be the same model. They shouldn't downgrade you though - you should get at least a 4 TB enterprise class drive in exchange.
But I'd replace it now, using the drive you have on hand (assuming it is new and either a NAS drive or an enterprise drive). Either keep the RMA'd replacement for a spare in the future, or use it in some other system.
Thanks for your feedback. I've learned from earlier mistakes and toke the recommendations often made in this community for a backup procedure to hart. The NAS is backed up fully to local USB drive. Essential files are copied to remote RN312. And a backup is maintained via rSync to a USB drive connected to that RN312 also. All backups run on a daily basis (incremental) and periodically (full backup). So I should be covered regarding backups.
The disk I swapped earlier was returned to the supplier and a replacment was supplied without issues, as the 5 years guarantee were not expired yet. It looked like a new one to me, but wouldn't know what to look for if it is rectified or not. I have a feeling these drives might not be the best choice for the RN516, as they are not marked as specific for NAS use. The WD Red series could be more appropriate.
Based on your comments, I'll replace the disk now with exactly same make and model and try to get the faulty one replaced by the supplier by a larger WD Red, if they will allow that (with some extra charge).
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Re: Detected increasing uncorrectable error count
@dsnpevl wrote:
The disk I swapped earlier was returned to the supplier and a replacment was supplied without issues, as the 5 years guarantee were not expired yet. It looked like a new one to me, but wouldn't know what to look for if it is rectified or not.
Western Digital puts a recertified label on their recertified drives. It should say recertified neear the top. The text isn't large but it should be there.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Re: Detected increasing uncorrectable error count
i thought your WDC WD4000FYYZ is the 4tb RE hard drive
this is top of range wd enterprise grade although the recent gold series is higher end
red drives spin at 5xxx rpm and is just a green/blue drive with vibration control. you should use red pro, se or re to compliment your 516
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Re: Detected increasing uncorrectable error count
@cpu8088 wrote:
i thought your WDC WD4000FYYZ is the 4tb RE hard drive
red drives spin at 5xxx rpm and is just a green/blue drive with vibration control. you should use red pro, se or re to compliment your 516
I agree the WD4000FYYZ should work fine.
But the WDC Reds will also work well, there is no reason to dismiss them. They aren't as fast and the warranty isn't as long, but they run a lot cooler. The RN516 is usually limited by network anyway.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Re: Detected increasing uncorrectable error count
@StephenB wrote:
@cpu8088 wrote:i thought your WDC WD4000FYYZ is the 4tb RE hard drive
red drives spin at 5xxx rpm and is just a green/blue drive with vibration control. you should use red pro, se or re to compliment your 516
I agree the WD4000FYYZ should work fine.
But the WDC Reds will also work well, there is no reason to dismiss them. They aren't as fast and the warranty isn't as long, but they run a lot cooler. The RN516 is usually limited by network anyway.
Thank you both for your quick responses and advise! What I take from your answers is that it should be fine to continue using WD4000FYYZ. So then I will try to get the defect one replaced, (hopefully) with another WD4000FYYZ. With latest OS updates, we now have the option to preset the fan speed on the performance page to "Cool". This setting is now configured and it helps to keep the drives a bit cooler. At 2000 RPM, the drive temperature is steadily at 40 dgr C / 104 dgr F. Maybe the "Cool" setting wil help prolong the live span of the drives.
Note that Netgear on http://kb.netgear.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/20641/~/readynas-hard-disk-compatibility-list?cid=wmt_... states:
"Because you trust ReadyNAS to protect your data, we only list drives that have passed stringent disk qualification tests. Furthermore, if you are using ReadyNAS in a business-critical environment, we strongly recommend drives with a Rotation Vibration Safeguard feature for providing an extra layer of protection from premature drive failure. These drives generally include 5-year warranties, which matches the 5-year warranty on your business-class ReadyNAS device."
Meanwhile, after 16 hours the hot swap and resync were succesful and the volume is healthy again.
Thu Jul 7 2016 9:47:50 Volume: Volume data health changed from Degraded to Redundant. Thu Jul 7 2016 9:47:49 Volume: Volume data is resynced. Thu Jul 7 2016 8:36:11 System: Antivirus scanner definition file was updated to 201607070427. Thu Jul 7 2016 1:00:22 Volume: Volume data is Degraded. .... Wed Jul 6 2016 17:59:06 Volume: Resyncing started for Volume data. Wed Jul 6 2016 17:58:55 Disk: Disk Model:WDC WD4000FYYZ-01UL1B2 Serial:WD-WCC136yyyyyy was added to Channel 5 of the head unit. Wed Jul 6 2016 17:56:44 Volume: Volume data health changed from Redundant to Degraded. Wed Jul 6 2016 17:56:42 Disk: Disk Model:WDC WD4000FYYZ-01UL1B0 Serial:WD-WCC1307xxxxx was removed from Channel 5 of the head unit.
Who can explain the difference between B0 and B2 at the end of the drive type number?
WDC WD4000FYYZ-01UL1B2
WDC WD4000FYYZ-01UL1B0
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Re: Detected increasing uncorrectable error count
@dsnpevl wrote:
Note that Netgear on http://kb.netgear.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/20641/~/readynas-hard-disk-compatibility-list?cid=wmt_... states:
"Because you trust ReadyNAS to protect your data, we only list drives that have passed stringent disk qualification tests. Furthermore, if you are using ReadyNAS in a business-critical environment, we strongly recommend drives with a Rotation Vibration Safeguard feature for providing an extra layer of protection from premature drive failure. These drives generally include 5-year warranties, which matches the 5-year warranty on your business-class ReadyNAS device."
Well, I always recommend either NAS-purposed drives or enterprise-class (and not desktop drives). All of those have some methods for either dealing with vibration. I don't recommend desktop drives, even if they are on the HCL.
The HCL isn't always up to date on new drive models, which has been a problem for years.
@dsnpevl wrote:
WDC WD4000FYYZ-01UL1B2
WDC WD4000FYYZ-01UL1B0
Likely only WDC knows for certain what's coded into the stuff after the -. I'm sure they slip in production changes over time.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Re: Detected increasing uncorrectable error count
@StephenB wrote:Likely only WDC knows for certain what's coded into the stuff after the -. I'm sure they slip in production changes over time.
Indeed. Asked about it on the WD forum:
https://community.wd.com/t/differences-between-wd4000fyyz-01ul1b2-and-wd4000fyyz-01ul1b0/170201
and got this answer and this link:
"Those drives are the same. The numbers after the "-" are for WD internal use.
Take a look at this link. maybe this could help. http://www.wdc.com/wdproducts/library/other/2579-001028.pdf
"
where it states:
"Model Number Suffix
The model number suffix (characters to the right of the dash following
the model number) is only for in-house use."
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Re: Detected increasing uncorrectable error count
@dsnpevl wrote:
Take a look at this link. maybe this could help. http://www.wdc.com/wdproducts/library/other/2579-001028.pdf
Thx for sharing that. That explains something else I was wondering about - why the 8 TB red was tagged as EFZX and the other Reds were EFRX.