With the same batch file and a delay of 1 hour, the load cycle count changes
as follows:

603
607
610
614
616

It should increment by 1 each time. So it loads and unloads by itself from
1 to 3 times per hour when it is not being accessed.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

Tom Del Rosso <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> With the same batch file and a delay of 1 hour, the load cycle count changes
> as follows:

> 603
> 607
> 610
> 614
> 616

> It should increment by 1 each time. So it loads and unloads by itself from
> 1 to 3 times per hour when it is not being accessed.

I don't see that here. I have 300 load-cycles in the last 5 months on
my AADS (plausible for one per boot). Before I appliad the fix, it was
about 100'000 for 1 year. I caught it only at 200'000 cycles.

Maybe you have some other mechanism that messes with the disk?

Arno
--
Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email: (E-Mail Removed)
GnuPG: ID: 1E25338F FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
----
Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans

Arno wrote:
> Tom Del Rosso <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > With the same batch file and a delay of 1 hour, the load cycle
> > count changes as follows:
>
> > 603
> > 607
> > 610
> > 614
> > 616
>
> > It should increment by 1 each time. So it loads and unloads by
> > itself from 1 to 3 times per hour when it is not being accessed.
>
> I don't see that here. I have 300 load-cycles in the last 5 months on
> my AADS (plausible for one per boot). Before I appliad the fix, it was
> about 100'000 for 1 year. I caught it only at 200'000 cycles.
>
> Maybe you have some other mechanism that messes with the disk?

No handles are open. I don't know what else can be accessing it.

I'll measure again after changing the timeout. What value do you use?


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

"There is no place as good to think as a bathtub." - Leo Szilard

Tom Del Rosso <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Arno wrote:
>> Tom Del Rosso <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> > With the same batch file and a delay of 1 hour, the load cycle
>> > count changes as follows:
>>
>> > 603
>> > 607
>> > 610
>> > 614
>> > 616
>>
>> > It should increment by 1 each time. So it loads and unloads by
>> > itself from 1 to 3 times per hour when it is not being accessed.
>>
>> I don't see that here. I have 300 load-cycles in the last 5 months on
>> my AADS (plausible for one per boot). Before I appliad the fix, it was
>> about 100'000 for 1 year. I caught it only at 200'000 cycles.
>>
>> Maybe you have some other mechanism that messes with the disk?

> No handles are open. I don't know what else can be accessing it.

> I'll measure again after changing the timeout. What value do you use?

I do not remember, but I think I would just have used the maximum.

Arno
--
Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email: (E-Mail Removed)
GnuPG: ID: 1E25338F FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
----
Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans

On 04/02/2012 09:49 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> With the same batch file and a delay of 1 hour, the load cycle count changes
> as follows:
>
> 603
> 607
> 610
> 614
> 616
>
> It should increment by 1 each time. So it loads and unloads by itself from
> 1 to 3 times per hour when it is not being accessed.

Do you have smartd running in the background? If so, you should configure
it to bypass disks that are in standby. The default check interval is 30
minutes.

--
Bob Nichols AT comcast.net I am "RNichols42"

Robert Nichols <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 04/02/2012 09:49 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>> With the same batch file and a delay of 1 hour, the load cycle count changes
>> as follows:
>>
>> 603
>> 607
>> 610
>> 614
>> 616
>>
>> It should increment by 1 each time. So it loads and unloads by itself from
>> 1 to 3 times per hour when it is not being accessed.

> Do you have smartd running in the background? If so, you should configure
> it to bypass disks that are in standby. The default check interval is 30
> minutes.

Good idea. Still, something else is odd here, as the disks
should not be able to unload (and load) more than once per hour
with an one-hour setting. Maybe the parameters are wrong.

As a pragmatic solution, I would advise to set the maximum spin-down
delay, measure the increment and decide whwther you can just live
with it.

Arno
--
Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email: (E-Mail Removed)
GnuPG: ID: 1E25338F FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
----
Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans

Arno wrote:
> Robert Nichols <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > On 04/02/2012 09:49 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> > > With the same batch file and a delay of 1 hour, the load cycle
> > > count changes as follows:
> > >
> > > 603
> > > 607
> > > 610
> > > 614
> > > 616
> > >
> > > It should increment by 1 each time. So it loads and unloads by
> > > itself from 1 to 3 times per hour when it is not being accessed.
>
> > Do you have smartd running in the background? If so, you should
> > configure it to bypass disks that are in standby. The default
> > check interval is 30 minutes.
>
> Good idea. Still, something else is odd here, as the disks
> should not be able to unload (and load) more than once per hour
> with an one-hour setting. Maybe the parameters are wrong.

No to smartd. Maybe the USB adapter is at fault. I'll have to shut down
and connect the drive internally, test more under Windows, then change the
idle setting.


> As a pragmatic solution, I would advise to set the maximum spin-down
> delay, measure the increment and decide whwther you can just live
> with it.

Living with it will be the only option anyway.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

Tom Del Rosso <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Arno wrote:
>> Robert Nichols <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> > On 04/02/2012 09:49 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>> > > With the same batch file and a delay of 1 hour, the load cycle
>> > > count changes as follows:
>> > >
>> > > 603
>> > > 607
>> > > 610
>> > > 614
>> > > 616
>> > >
>> > > It should increment by 1 each time. So it loads and unloads by
>> > > itself from 1 to 3 times per hour when it is not being accessed.
>>
>> > Do you have smartd running in the background? If so, you should
>> > configure it to bypass disks that are in standby. The default
>> > check interval is 30 minutes.
>>
>> Good idea. Still, something else is odd here, as the disks
>> should not be able to unload (and load) more than once per hour
>> with an one-hour setting. Maybe the parameters are wrong.

> No to smartd. Maybe the USB adapter is at fault. I'll have to shut down
> and connect the drive internally, test more under Windows, then change the
> idle setting.

That is a possibility. Maybe it explicitely sends standby requests
for the disk.

>> As a pragmatic solution, I would advise to set the maximum spin-down
>> delay, measure the increment and decide whwther you can just live
>> with it.

> Living with it will be the only option anyway.

Indeed ;-)

Arno
--
Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email: (E-Mail Removed)
GnuPG: ID: 1E25338F FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
----
Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans

In article <jlpsfc$pb5$(E-Mail Removed)>, "Tom Del Rosso" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>Arno wrote:
>> Robert Nichols <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> > On 04/02/2012 09:49 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>> > > With the same batch file and a delay of 1 hour, the load cycle
>> > > count changes as follows:
>> > >
>> > > 603
>> > > 607
>> > > 610
>> > > 614
>> > > 616
>> > >
>> > > It should increment by 1 each time. So it loads and unloads by
>> > > itself from 1 to 3 times per hour when it is not being accessed.
>>
>> > Do you have smartd running in the background? If so, you should
>> > configure it to bypass disks that are in standby. The default
>> > check interval is 30 minutes.
>>
>> Good idea. Still, something else is odd here, as the disks
>> should not be able to unload (and load) more than once per hour
>> with an one-hour setting. Maybe the parameters are wrong.
>
>No to smartd. Maybe the USB adapter is at fault. I'll have to shut down
>and connect the drive internally, test more under Windows, then change the
>idle setting.
>

Agreed, many external USB cases that lack fans will spin down the drive as to
not generate heat.


I have a Nexstar CX that does just that.



>
>> As a pragmatic solution, I would advise to set the maximum spin-down
>> delay, measure the increment and decide whwther you can just live
>> with it.
>
>Living with it will be the only option anyway.
>
>

GMAN wrote:
> In article <jlpsfc$pb5$(E-Mail Removed)>, "Tom Del Rosso"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> > No to smartd. Maybe the USB adapter is at fault. I'll have to
> > shut down and connect the drive internally, test more under
> > Windows, then change the idle setting.
> >
>
> Agreed, many external USB cases that lack fans will spin down the
> drive as to
> not generate heat.
>
>
> I have a Nexstar CX that does just that.

But I don't understand why the spin-down command would produce another load
cycle if it's already unloaded.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.