Verbatim USB 3.0 external 2 TB HD with Samsung F4EG HD204UI

[dragonfruit]

Verbatim USB 3.0 Desktop Hard Drive 2TB has Samsung HD204UI (reported by operating system).

1. That hard drive needs a firmware update, otherwise data might be lost according to Samsung:
http://www.samsung.com/global/business/ ... msg_id=386

However, it is not possible to apply Samsung firmware fix, because Samsung software (patch tool) does not recognize the drive, when it is in Verbatim USB enclosure.

I tried it even with USBASPI V2.20 MS-DOS Driver:
http://hddguru.com/software/2006.02.09- ... OS-Driver/
to no avail.

It is not possible to remove the hard drive from the enclosure in order to apply the fix, without loosing warranty, as there is "Warranty void if broken" sticker.

Is there any software, which would allow to update the firmware of the Samsung HD204UI hard drive without removing it from the enclosure?

Because of USB enclosure it is also not possible to use any tool for testing the hard drive surface (and SMART status), including Samsung's diagnostic software: ESTOOL v. 3.01 and MHDD (with ASPI driver it can detect it, but says 'drive not ready')

Any idea how to get around this?

2. Verbatim in their Quick Start Guide says (in capital bold letters):
"Verbatim will not be liable for data loss or any incidental, consequential or special damages, however caused, for breach of warranties or otherwise."

However, I believe that Verbatim cannot deny its liability for data loss in this case, because Verbatim is selling a faulty product (with a known fault, which can be fixed only by firmware update or hard drive exchange to a newer revision), and Verbatim, so far, has not provided any solution.

3. Samsung HD204UI hard drive, as most of other 2 TB hard drives is built in Advanced Format:
http://www.samsung.com/global/business/ ... &ppmi=1219

This means that it needs to have partitions properly aligned, otherwise it might work considerably slower and cause other problems.
This is so because with the emulation of 512B sectors, there is the risk that a partition could be misaligned compared to the 4K physical sectors - where it would be unwittingly started in the middle of such a sector. As a result, the clusters of a file system on that partition would end up straddling 4K sectors, which would cause performance problems.

Verbatim is providing the drive pre-formatted to FAT 32. But have they aligned it properly?
I think they should warn their customers about that aligning problem (particularly if someone would like to change formatting for example to NTFS).
Partitioning the hard drive under Windows 7 should align it properly. But Verbatim could provide their customers with a special tool from Acronis and/or Paragon to align the partitions (like WD did).

You can read more about Advanced Format HDs and the alignment problem on those pages:
http://seagate.com/docs/pdf/whitepaper/ ... ectors.pdf
http://consumer.media.seagate.com/2010/ ... ve-primer/
http://seagate.com/docs/pdf/whitepaper/ ... on_faq.pdf
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2888
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/jimmymay/archiv ... plate.aspx

4. Last but not least: why is warranty for Verbatim product lasting only 2 years in the European Union (and in most of other places in the world), while in USA warranty lasts 7 years: http://www.verbatim.com/UserFiles/File/ ... rranty.pdf
http://www.verbatim.com/prod/hard-drive ... p/usb-3.0/ ?

Why do they discriminate Europeans regarding warranty so grossly?

[dragonfruit]

There have been tested 5 hard drives using different tests (mainly surface access times tests):

1. Samsung HD204UI in Verbatim 2 TB 3.0 USB enclosure.
2. Samsung SP1614N
3. WDC WD6400AAKS
4. WDC WD1600BEVS
5. Seagate ST320410A

The tests results are in 149 files of the screenshots of these tests, available to download in this thread:
http://forum.hddguru.com/surface-test-hdds-t18575.html

1. Generally Samsung drives (even the new 2TB Samsung HD204UI) seem to have considerably poorer quality of the surface comparing to the 3 years old (or so) Western Digital WDC WD6400AAKS.

2. I would like to see similar tests, in particular of other brands and models of 2 TB hard drives. Please upload your tests results in that thread (click the link above).

3. I wonder why in some hard drives slower access times can bee seen aligning in some diagonal patterns (in HD204UI) and why in some other drives (in WDC WD1600BEVS) a checkered pattern appears (only from the second half of the scan) which "shape" changes regularly depending on the part of the disk surface scanned, while in some other drives no such regular patterns are present?

4. Why is there such a difference in SMART status health notification between various software for Samsung SP1614N (it is red for most of the tests in HDD Health and everything OK in HD Tune)? There is also a significant difference in MHDD scan result and HDDScan result for SP1614N.

5. BTW, it took ca. 31 h to test Samsung HD204UI in Verbatim 2 TB 3.0 USB enclosure on USB 2.0 port.

[HFat]

If you're going to put in a large testing effort (which would of course be commendable), I recommend you stick to cross-platform text-mode utilities such as smartmontools which would allow everyone to contribute as well as simple automatic parsing and analysis. Taking snapshots and sifting through them is a PITA.
I do not recommend testing through USB.

I'm not sure why you say there is a problem with "surface quality". I do not have a F4 but I've had a number of older Samsung drives. Some have failed of course but I've not noticed any particular issue with them compared to other brands. I'm not sure what information you're interested in. I don't have 2T drives but I might perhaps be motivated to contribute some data if you could explain what you're looking for and why.

Your SP1614 apparently has a few bad sectors. It seems some of the tools you used misinterpreted the SMART data. It's fairly common but most drives do not have any. A few reallocated sectors isn't a huge red flag but such errors are somewhat correlated with drive failures.
I could post the number of bad sectors for some of my drives but I'm afraid it would mostly be boring: zero, zero, zero, two, zero and so on. I have a few old laptop drives which are still in working condition in spite of a massive amount of bad sectors. I could post SMART data for a couple of them if you're curious.

[dragonfruit]

If you're going to put in a large testing effort (which would of course be commendable), I recommend you stick to cross-platform text-mode utilities such as smartmontools which would allow everyone to contribute as well as simple automatic parsing and analysis. Taking snapshots and sifting through them is a PITA.

Thank you for the advise. I was afraid that smartmontools would triger the bug on the HD204UI, and I would lose some data.

I do not recommend testing through USB.

Sure, but the "Warranty void if removed" sticker prevented from testing it directly.

I'm not sure why you say there is a problem with "surface quality". I do not have a F4 but I've had a number of

Looking at the number of <500 ms and > 500 ms in the test it seems that F4 surface is worse than WD6400.

older Samsung drives. Some have failed of course but I've not noticed any particular issue with them compared to other brands. I'm not sure what information you're interested in. I don't have 2T drives but I might perhaps be motivated to contribute some data if you could explain what you're looking for and why.

I am simply comparing, so I am looking at various data - in those tests in particular I was interested in surface quality, which I believe these test can show.

Also I would like to understand the different regular patterns on the maps of the surface observed in some of the drives.

Your SP1614 apparently has a few bad sectors. It seems some of the tools you used misinterpreted the SMART data. It's fairly common but most drives do not have any. A few reallocated sectors isn't a huge red flag but such errors are somewhat correlated with drive failures.
I could post the number of bad sectors for some of my drives but I'm afraid it would mostly be boring: zero, zero, zero, two, zero and so on. I have a few old laptop drives which are still in working condition in spite of a massive amount of bad sectors. I could post SMART data for a couple of them if you're curious.

ok. I would like to see the maps as well, to know what pattern those bad sectors form, are they close to each other, and in which part of the surface of the disk they appeared.

[dragonfruit]

Samsung customer service is rather not what you would expect:
http://forum.hddguru.com/verbatim-usb-e ... ml#p124618

[HFat]

I was afraid that smartmontools would triger the bug on the HD204UI

It wouldn't work through USB.

Looking at the number of <500 ms and > 500 ms in the test it seems that F4 surface is worse than WD6400.

How do you know it's got anything to do with the surface? It could be any number of things.
Yeah, your very old WD drive doesn't have any >500ms results but both your other Samsung and your more recent WD drive have a higher proportion of >500ms results than the F4. You'd need to compare with other drives of the current generation but at first glance I'd say there's nothing to be worried about.
It seems natural to me that you'd sometimes get high latencies over USB for one thing. Maybe it's not but performance over USB is so bad I don't care. Some USB interfaces have intermittent issues as well.
Over the time it takes to test these drives, lots of self-diagnosis features and whatnot could kick in and give you high latencies on a few addresses. I know some of my Samsung drives make a fairly loud noise out of the blue every so often (it sounds a bit like parking). I imagine acoustic and power management settings could also have an impact.

ok. I would like to see the maps as well, to know what pattern those bad sectors form, are they close to each other, and in which part of the surface of the disk they appeared.

How do you get at that information if the sectors have been reallocated? There's only one LBA address in the error log. Here's the SMART data for one of my Samsungs:

Code: Select all

ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME          FLAG     VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE      UPDATED  WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE
  1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate     0x000f   100   094   051    Pre-fail  Always       -       0
  3 Spin_Up_Time            0x0007   100   100   025    Pre-fail  Always       -       4992
  4 Start_Stop_Count        0x0032   100   100   000    Old_age   Always       -       219
  5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct   0x0033   100   100   011    Pre-fail  Always       -       0
  7 Seek_Error_Rate         0x000e   100   100   000    Old_age   Always       -       0
  8 Seek_Time_Performance   0x0024   100   100   000    Old_age   Offline      -       0
  9 Power_On_Hours          0x0032   096   096   000    Old_age   Always       -       2514473
 10 Spin_Retry_Count        0x0032   100   100   000    Old_age   Always       -       0
 12 Power_Cycle_Count       0x0032   100   100   000    Old_age   Always       -       107
191 G-Sense_Error_Rate      0x0012   100   100   000    Old_age   Always       -       1566
194 Temperature_Celsius     0x0022   166   085   000    Old_age   Always       -       24
195 Hardware_ECC_Recovered  0x001a   100   100   000    Old_age   Always       -       2658
196 Reallocated_Event_Count 0x0032   042   042   000    Old_age   Always       -       127
197 Current_Pending_Sector  0x0012   100   100   000    Old_age   Always       -       0
198 Offline_Uncorrectable   0x0030   085   085   000    Old_age   Offline      -       33
199 UDMA_CRC_Error_Count    0x003e   200   200   000    Old_age   Always       -       0
200 Multi_Zone_Error_Rate   0x000a   100   100   000    Old_age   Always       -       0
201 Soft_Read_Error_Rate    0x0012   100   100   000    Old_age   Always       -       0
223 Load_Retry_Count        0x0012   100   100   000    Old_age   Always       -       979
225 Load_Cycle_Count        0x0012   001   001   000    Old_age   Always       -       3322299
255 Unknown_Attribute       0x000a   100   100   000    Old_age   Always       -       0

So I wouldn't worry too much over 4 sectors. It is a bad sign, sure but not a big deal unless perhaps they just occured. The age of the drive alone is a bigger concern in my opinion. A 160G isn't worth much nowadays so it might be a good idea to replace it if you're using it for something important.

[dragonfruit]

I was afraid that smartmontools would triger the bug on the HD204UI

It wouldn't work through USB.

You mean smartmontools wouldn't work, or the bug? If HDDScan was able to read firmware number over USB, then perhaps it issued ATA IDENTIFY DEVICE command, and they say here:
http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/smartm ... GBadBlocks
that when this command is issued the bug is triggered.

Looking at the number of <500 ms and > 500 ms in the test it seems that F4 surface is worse than WD6400.

How do you know it's got anything to do with the surface? It could be any number of things.

Right, but if repeated tests show similar numbers, then it seems that it is rather the surface (or some bugs in firmware)?

Yeah, your very old WD drive doesn't have any >500ms results but both your other Samsung and your more recent WD drive have a higher proportion of >500ms results than the F4. You'd need to compare with other drives of the current generation but at first glance I'd say there's nothing to be worried about.

That's why I encouraged others to send their results.

How do you get at that information if the sectors have been reallocated? There's only one LBA address in the error log.

I would then see only those which are not reallocated.

[HFat]

You don't seem to get my point so I'll be less diplomatic. Here's what you originally stated:

Generally Samsung drives (even the new 2TB Samsung HD204UI) seem to have considerably poorer quality of the surface comparing to the 3 years old (or so) Western Digital WDC WD6400AAKS.

If you're using the >500ms results as a proxy for "surface quality", this is very misleading.
Among the drives you posted tests for, the other WD had more >500ms results than the F4. Maybe you did not notice this but to keep claiming it's brand-related now that I pointed it out would be a lie.

If repeated tests give similar numbers, it does not tell you it's surface related. Any number of things can have repeatable effects, including a defective USB interface.

[dragonfruit]

Generally Samsung drives (even the new 2TB Samsung HD204UI) seem to have considerably poorer quality of the surface comparing to the 3 years old (or so) Western Digital WDC WD6400AAKS.

If you're using the >500ms results as a proxy for "surface quality", this is very misleading.
Among the drives you posted tests for, the other WD had more >500ms results than the F4. Maybe you did not notice this but to keep claiming it's brand-related now that I pointed it out would be a lie.

You misinterpreted my sentence. I did not claim that it is brand related. I said that Samsung drives (obviously those which I tested) seem to have poorer surface quality than Western Digital WDC WD6400AAKS, and that's it.

If repeated tests give similar numbers, it does not tell you it's surface related. Any number of things can have repeatable effects, including a defective USB interface.

Yes, but still it seems more probable that it is the surface. I have seen someone on some other forum quoting MHDD result for HD204UI (not in enclosure I suppose), and AFAIR he was saying, based on those results, that it has poorer quality than WD, which he also had. So I only confimed his results in some ways. Of course we both can be misinterpreting the maps, but then I would like to know how to interpret them.