Lenny, Tom Tom.Lenny at
Wed Sep 24 14:34:13 PDT 1997

* From the T10 (formerly SCSI) Reflector (t10 at, posted by:
* "Lenny, Tom" <Tom.Lenny at>
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------ =_NextPart_000_01BCC907.B728F500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I support using Test Unit Ready for reporting SMART status.  Here's 
the sense data that Compaq specifies for SCSI SMART.

Sense Key  = 0x1
Sense Code = 0x5D

Sense Qualifier  =

				Value		Meaning
		upper nibble:  	0h 		General Hard Drive Failure
				1h 		Hardware impending failure
				2h		Controller impending failure
				3h		Data Channel impending failure
				4h		Servo impending failure
				5h		Spindle impending failure
				6h		Firmware impending failure
				7h - Eh: 	Reserved
		lower nibble:
			        	0h 		General Hard Drive Failure
			        	1h		Drive Error threshold exceeding limits.
			        	2h		Data Error Rate exceeding limits.
			        	3h		Seek Error Rate exceeding limits.
			        	4h		LBA reassignment exceeding limits.
			        	5h		Access Times exceeding limits.
			        	6h		Start Unit Times exceeding limits.
			        	7h		Channel parametrics indicate impending failure
			        	8h		Controller detected impending failure.
			        	9h		Throughput performance
 				Ah		Seek time performance
				Bh		Spin-up retry count
				Ch		Drive calibration retry count
			        	Dh-Eh		Reserved.	

Tom Lenny

Tom Lenny
PC Storage Interface Development
Compaq Computer Corp. 		Phone:	(281) 514-9142
MS 070810			FAX:        (281) 514-0514
20555 SH 249			email:	tom.lenny at
Houston, TX  77070	 	

-----Original Message-----
From:	c=US;a= ;p=COMPAQ;dda:ZID=<JHanmann(a)>;
Sent:	Wednesday, September 17, 1997 3:26 PM
To:	Lenny, Tom; c=US;a= ;p=COMPAQ;dda:ZID="'John Nels Fuller'" 
<jfuller(a)>;; c=US;a= 
Subject:	RE: SMART Support in Native Profile

After a few cycles of this discussion it might be good to do neither. 
seriously, I understand the desire everyone has to not re-invent the 
Once again it would be nice if the device didn't have to support each 
the several methods for each feature. Perhaps another solution is to 
have the SMART status information in the mode page (it's ugly to put 
there anyways) but instead have the Test Unit Ready command report 
status if we have a failure. BIOS and solicited status implementations 
could use that command to obtain current SMART status. We would have 
define the interactions with the unsolicited status mechanism.

I really hate to see us carrying the baggage for both polling and
unsolicited. However, I would hate to see the unsolicited status 
removed as we will therefore be locked into a polling method with no
capability to move away from it.

Jonathan L. Hanmann
Western Digital Corporation
Internet: JHanmann at
Voice: 714-932-5189
FAX: 714-932-6010

-----Original Message-----
From:	John Nels Fuller [SMTP:jfuller at]
Sent:	Wednesday, September 17, 1997 12:37 PM
To:	'diskboys at'
Subject:	RE: SMART Support in Native Profile

I would prefer not to do both methods of reporting SMART STATUS.  If 
have to have the polling method to support BIOS and existing OS 
then why not just call that good.

> ----------
> From: 	Lenny, Tom
> Sent: 	Wednesday, September 17, 1997 7:49 AM
> To: 	'diskboys at'
> Subject: 	SMART Support in Native Profile
> I propose that we keep both methods of reporting SMART in the 
> profile, polling page 0x3E as well as the unsolicited status.  I 
> with the group that the preferred implementation for OS software
> should
> be to use the unsolicited status.   In Compaq's current Desktop
> implementation of SMART with ATA and SCSI drives we have BIOS check
> the
> SMART STATUS at boot time, OS drivers that poll SMART STATUS every 
> hours (default) and diagnostic software that runs from floppy. 
> 1394 my preference is that we use unsolicited status however we're 
> sure today how this will be supported in Win9x and Win NT.  For our
> and Diagnostics I'm not clear if we  plan to support unsolicited
> status.
>   We want our BIOS to implement the minimum amount of code to BOOT
> devices.   Without a method of polling how will BIOS get SMART 
> "real-time".
> In Mike's latest the SMART VALID BIT is not defined.  Also, the 
> OFF-LINE Duration is not required.  That was taken directly from 
> SMART spec is not required for 1394 or SCSI.
> Tom Lenny
> Compaq Computer Corp
> PC Storage Interface Development
> phone: 281-514-9142
> fax: 281-514-0514
> email: tom.lenny at

------ =_NextPart_000_01BCC907.B728F500--
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at

More information about the T10 mailing list