mirror of
https://github.com/007revad/Synology_HDD_db.git
synced 2026-04-25 13:45:59 +03:00
[GH-ISSUE #407] SA6400 DSM 7.2.2-72806, 1 of 3 SEAGATE SAS HDDs is loading firmware information. #854
Labels
No milestone
No project
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference
starred/Synology_HDD_db#854
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Originally created by @PeterSuh-Q3 on GitHub (Dec 27, 2024).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/007revad/Synology_HDD_db/issues/407
Hello.
007revad, It's been a while.
I'm asking on behalf of a user in Korea.
I found that one of the 4TB ST4000NM0295 SAS disks in Disk Manager is not getting the firmware version.
I checked SMART information, PCI information, and even checked in the BIOS of the RAID card.
I also checked that there was no problem in the inspection of the disk.
As shown below, I checked that the db information was duplicated as if it was tangled,
and I assume that the script version was v3.5.102.
I replaced the script with v3.5.106 version again and tried to reprocess it as a service in mshell as shown below.
https://github.com/PeterSuh-Q3/tcrp-addons/blob/main/hdddb/src/install.sh
The processing option is "-nrwpeS".
Since the problem was not solved, I quit Disk Manager and tried the following 2nd time.
The hdddb.sh script is 100% identical to your syno_hdd_db.sh script.
The result is the same, the problem was not solved.
I guess there was still incorrect information in sa6400_host_v7.db.bak.
Is there a way to regenerate the hdd db information in the sa6400_host_v7.db file?
The Korean text in the red box in the captured image means "Loading..."
@PeterSuh-Q3 commented on GitHub (Dec 27, 2024):
Here is the new information he replied back with.
The command below said that some action was processed.
The duplicate disk syntax is gone,
but it still says that it is loading firmware.
I requested the final syntax confirmed by the command below.
@007revad commented on GitHub (Dec 27, 2024):
So sa6400_host_v7.db now correctly contains?
@PeterSuh-Q3 commented on GitHub (Dec 27, 2024):
Hoping for that. Still no answer from him.
@007revad commented on GitHub (Dec 27, 2024):
"Found]"was probably from an error message fromsyno_hdd_util --ssd_detect | grep "/dev/sata3 " | awk '{print $(NF-3)}'which may have returned something like "[Model Not Found] [Firmware Not Found]"Can you ask him what the following command returns. He can redact the serial numbers as they're not needed.
sudo syno_hdd_util --ssd_detect@PeterSuh-Q3 commented on GitHub (Dec 27, 2024):
I asked him to do the following:
https://svrforum.com/nas/1980675#comment_1986026
@PeterSuh-Q3 commented on GitHub (Dec 28, 2024):
Here is his response.
"Found]" appears again.
@PeterSuh-Q3 commented on GitHub (Dec 28, 2024):
It doesn't see /dev/sata1 (Samsung SSD) which should be at the top.
It is mounted on the RAID controller with SAS disks.
(Sorry, there was a miscommunication. /dev/sata1 was not a Samsung SSD. It was removed in advance because it was unnecessary before using this command.
You should understand that the problematic SAS DISK that existed in /dev/sata3 has been changed to /dev/sata1.)
Additionally, the disk information is present in the result using smartctl.
I can't find out the firmware version information with smartctl either, but I think there are other utilities that can find out this.
If the firmware information is not found, I suggest using these utilities as a second attempt.
Also, if the firmware information is not displayed even after using additional utilities, how about fixing the default value to "1.13.2" for disks via RAID controller?
@007revad commented on GitHub (Dec 28, 2024):
Can you ask him what this command returns:
I have no idea how to determine if the drive is in a RAID controller.
Do all brand and model RAID controllers show the drive's firmware as "1.13.2"?
@PeterSuh-Q3 commented on GitHub (Dec 28, 2024):
Before asking him, I also have a Dell Perc H310 and H200 SAS RAID controllers that use SAS disks, so I tested it out.
As you can see below, there was no firmware information that was not there,
but it was possible to trigger the error.
HUS72303CLAR3000 is a Hitachi SAS disk.
https://github.com/007revad/Synology_HDD_db/blob/main/syno_hdd_db.sh#L962
@PeterSuh-Q3 commented on GitHub (Dec 28, 2024):
I haven't checked all brands of RAID controllers, but all controllers based on the SAS 2008 chipset are the same.
For the rest of the cases, I'll look into the information posted in the community.
I don't think I've ever seen anything other than "1.13.2".
I'll do some more research and let you know for sure.
And I'll request a test from them.
@007revad commented on GitHub (Dec 28, 2024):
What does this return for you?
EDIT Changed sata1 to sata3
@PeterSuh-Q3 commented on GitHub (Dec 28, 2024):
I tried it with my disk first before getting an answer from him. It seems like it only shows the disk revision and not the firmware version.
@PeterSuh-Q3 commented on GitHub (Dec 28, 2024):
Sorry for the confusion. Is his /dev/sata3 really needed when there's nothing on it?
@007revad commented on GitHub (Dec 28, 2024):
I want him to check sata1
The sata3 was for you.
@PeterSuh-Q3 commented on GitHub (Dec 28, 2024):
The firmware version of the SAS controller cannot be specified as 1.13.2.
This seems to be only applicable to XPE using REDPILL.
We are fixing this value to be used across all lkm.
github.com/PeterSuh-Q3/redpill-lkm@baf7423c8d/shim/storage/smart_shim.c (L290)@PeterSuh-Q3 commented on GitHub (Dec 28, 2024):
@PeterSuh-Q3 commented on GitHub (Dec 28, 2024):
I also asked him to check these two commands:
@PeterSuh-Q3 commented on GitHub (Dec 28, 2024):
It's my nas
@007revad commented on GitHub (Dec 28, 2024):
I forgot that the reason why I stopped using cat
/sys/block/sata#/device/revwas because sometimes it is the revision instead of the firmware version.For WDC drives rev is only part of the firmware version. For Seagate and Intel rev is the same as the firmware version.
From drives in 3 of my Synology NAS:
WDC rev is 1A01 but the firmware version is actually 01.01A01
WDC rev is 81.0 but the firmware version is actually 81.00A81
WDC rev is 82.0 but the firmware version is actually 82.00A82
Seagate rev is SC60 which is the same as the firmware version
Seagate rev is SC13 which is the same as the firmware version
Intel rev is LH6i which is the same as the firmware version
@007revad commented on GitHub (Dec 28, 2024):
Does it work with
-d satinstead of-d ata?EDIT Never mind. I just tested it on my 3 Synology NAS and
-d ataworks.@PeterSuh-Q3 commented on GitHub (Dec 28, 2024):
It doesn't work. (SATA controller doesn't work either.)
@007revad commented on GitHub (Dec 28, 2024):
-d satawas a typo. It should have been-d sat@007revad commented on GitHub (Dec 28, 2024):
Does
smartctl -a -d ata -T permissive /dev/sata7 | grep -i "firmware" | awk '{print $NF}'return "Found]" or "1.13.2" ?@PeterSuh-Q3 commented on GitHub (Dec 28, 2024):
I tried applying "ata" to all disks and it worked well.
However, when applying "sat", sometimes the result "Found]" appears in the middle.
@007revad commented on GitHub (Dec 28, 2024):
Excellent.
Currently if the script fails to get the firmware version with:
it gets the firmware version with:
I'll change the
-d satto-d ata.I just need to test if
-d ataworks with SATA M.2 drives (which I can't do until tomorrow).@PeterSuh-Q3 commented on GitHub (Dec 28, 2024):
I did additional testing with ADATA 32GB M.2 SATA DM60BM4-D8000T
/dev/sata3.
(To clarify, it is not M.2 NVme. It is M.2 SATA [Sata3]).
Whether it is sat option or ata option, the results are good.
@PeterSuh-Q3 commented on GitHub (Dec 29, 2024):
Thanks for the correction and reflection.
Here is his last feedback.
In the result,
Found] is gone.
The DB looks normal.
However, it seems that one of his HDDs has a physical defect or other secondary problem.
In the Korean version of Disk Manager, both the serial and firmware are not displayed as "Loading..."