Opened 19 months ago

Last modified 12 months ago

#1678 new defect

attribute spelling is inconsistent between different drivedb entries

Reported by: vthriller Owned by:
Priority: minor Milestone: unscheduled
Component: drivedb Version:
Keywords: Cc:


For example:

  • Grown_Bad_Block_Count
  • Grown_Bad_Block_Ct
  • Total_Bad_Block
  • Total_Bad_Block_Count
  • Total_Bad_Blocks
  • Thermal_Throttle (?)
  • Thermal_Throttle_St
  • Thermal_Throttle_Status
  • Uncorrectable_ECC_Cnt
  • Uncorrectable_ECC_Ct
  • Uncorrectable_Err_Ct
  • Uncorrectable_Error_Cnt
  • Uncorrectable_Sector_Ct
  • Uncorrectable_Sectors
  • Erase_Fail_Cnt
  • Erase_Fail_Count
  • Erase_Fail_Ct
  • Unexpect_Power_Loss
  • Unexpect_Power_Loss_Ct
  • Unexpect_PwrLoss_Ct
  • Unexpected_Power_Cycle
  • Unexpected_Power_Loss
  • Unexpected_Pwr_Loss_Cnt
  • Unexpected_Pwr_Loss_Ct
  • Soft_ECC_Correct_Rate
  • Soft_ECC_Correction_Rt
  • DriveLife_Remaining%
  • Drive_Life_Remaining%
  • PCT_Life_Remaining
  • Perc_Rated_Life_Remain
  • Percent_Life_Remaining
  • Percent_Lifetime_Remain
  • Remaining_Life
  • Remaining_Lifetime_Perc

And so on and so forth.

Change History (4)

comment:1 by vthriller, 19 months ago

Component: alldrivedb

comment:2 by Christian Franke, 19 months ago

Milestone: unscheduled
Priority: trivialminor


comment:3 by Anthony D'Atri, 12 months ago

I think this is a function in part of multiple submitters, but even more that vendor SMART reference documents use different names.

For drive self-reported lifetime, it's even worse:

  • Media_Wearout_Indicator
  • Wear_Leveling_Count
  • Wear_Level_Used
  • Percent_Lifetime_Remain
  • SSD_Life_Left

Some drives report lifetime used, others lifetime remaining. I've seen at least one case where a manufacturer distributed a drivedb.h entry that got the polarity wrong.

I came to the site actually to request a project to align the attribute names, to pick a standard for each and update all drivedb.h entries to follow.

One might argue that tools should use the numeric ID instead, which has some merit, but I've also seen drives that use nonstandard numeric IDs for some metrics.

comment:4 by Christian Franke, 12 months ago

Specific ATA SMART attributes were never part of any standard. The related data block is vendor specific since at least ATA-4 (1991) and has been declared obsolete in ATA ACS-4 (2015).

In practice, HDDs use a rather stable attribute set but SSD vendors still invent new incompatible attribute sets.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.