SSD EOL Write Protect query

Gerry Houlder gerry.houlder at
Thu Jan 16 14:36:37 PST 2014

Formatted message: <a href="">HTML-formatted message</a>

I am aware of other products that can put themselves into a write protected
condition when they believe their write mechanism is unreliable and should
be disabled to prevent loss of data. This is an error recovery/ reliability
preservation activity and not normal device behavior, so it need not be
discussed in the standard. I think your proposed use falls into the same
As far as returning a Unit Attention, that would not be useful. Getting
WRITE PROTECTED sense data on every write command is more than sufficient.
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Mike Berhan <mikeb at> wrote:
> * From the T10 Reflector (t10 at, posted by:
> * Mike Berhan <mikeb at>
> *
> The SBC-3r36 specification has a "Write Protection" section which states
> that write protection is controlled by one of the following:
> a) the user of the medium through manual intervention (e.g., a mechanical
> lock on the SCSI target device);
> b) hardware controls (e.g., tabs on the medium's housing); or
> c) software write protection
> For hardware write protection, it also states:
> "Hardware write protection results when a physical attribute of the SCSI
> target device or its medium is changed to specify that writing shall be
> prohibited. Changing the state of the hardware write protection requires
> physical intervention, either with the SCSI target device or its medium."
> I cannot find a discussion of the drive putting itself into a write protect
> state without manual or software intervention.  For example, an SSD that is
> approaching its end of life might be running out of reserved free blocks
> and
> will put itself into a write protect state.  If a drive fails this state, I
> could see writes failing with returned sense data of:
> 07h 27h 05h (Data Protect - Permanent write protect)
> Now to my question.  If a drive enters, on its own, this write protect
> state, has it also entered a unit attention condition?  I'm assuming it
> should.  If it has, what is the unit attention that should be returned to
> be
> SBC-3 compliant?
> Thanks in advance.
> Mike
> *
> * 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