I guess I'm unclear on when it should be left alone, upped to 25.5, or simply disabled--and also why EADS is less of a problem than EACS.
I just hope WD isn't cheating on the whole "park-unpark" count with the EADS series...
However, one thing just came to me... Why would the park/unpark head movement increase start/stop cycle count in the first place? Bear with me a little here, please:
1) The harshest thing an HDD can perform is a full spin-up procedure from power down or sleep modes, right?
2) Park/unpark movements, though, only pertain to the data heads, which are expected to be moving CONSTANTLY; or, if not moving, the actuator must hold them in place.
3) This means that head parks only mean the head moved to another place, one that is actually safer (no head crash risk) and more energy efficient (less drag on the platters).
4) Yes, head parks are a little more dangerous in the sense that the arm can break while loading or unloading (not likely, I assume), and yes, data access will have a slight lag if the head is parked.
However, in the end, I don't think there is a significant increase in drive wear because of constant parking, which would explain why
1) We aren't seing EACS drives failing in droves - these probably had a slight firmware "hickup" that incorrectly counts parks as full drive stops (which is yucky, and WD should fix that, since EACS owners no longer get to understand if there is a problem with drive wear derived from start/stop cycles)
2) EADS drives still exibit the same low timing for head park, but the SST counter doesn't increase with them - if my thoughts are correct, then WD wouldn't be cheating at all.
So, besides the whole "we can't predict the health of our drive from the SST counter" issue, do you think what I said makes sense, and WD drives are actually safe to use? I mean, these aren't built to be system drives, they are meant to be used as low-power storage drives, with few occasional acesses. Which means the 8-second park timer isn't actually that bad, since it saves a lot of energy both from the arm actuator and as drag (or lack thereof, in this case).
The only thing not really explained in this angle is why SpeedFan causes heads to unpark like crazy...I mean, it's not like SpeedFan tries to write to each and every drive in the system at each SMART reading, right?