Talk:Self-Monitoring, Analysis and Reporting Technology

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Self-Monitoring, Analysis and Reporting Technology article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2: 3 months

Computing Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 28 October 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from S.M.A.R.T. to Self-Monitoring, Analysis and Reporting Technology. The result of the discussion was moved.

Attribute "235 POR_Recovery_Count" on Samsung SSD?

I have a Samsung SSD 840 EVO 1TB and in smartctl it is showing the Attribute with ID "235 POR_Recovery_Count". In the Wikipedia article ID 235 seems to be something else, there it is called "235 Load/Unload Cycle Count" so i assume that manufacturers use that ID differently. But what is the meaning of "POR Revovery Count"? If someone has an answer it would be nice if he could add it to the article. --37.209.114.151 (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SMART was designed for HDDs, and then forced to work with the first gens of SSDs that were all designed as drop-in functional replacements HDDs, thus requiring a lot of "creative" re-purposing of attributes originally focused on moving heads and rotating media. Little of this creativity is industry-wide and well documented. Samsung's web pages may have something, or it may not. Some SMART reporting tools use different definitions from the hardware that's reporting the SMART info, leading to a lot of confusion.

There's very little WP can do to remedy any of this.

But, just for you in this one case, I'll have a guess based on my working with SSDs: it may be counting times when the device was powered off abruptly, requiring any incomplete updates that were in progress from RAM to flash to be restarted and completed when power is restored. Note that's assuming "POR" means, per an industry standard use, "Power On Reset". --A D Monroe III^(talk) 21:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Attribute 90 / 0x5A - NAND Health

HGST's 20TB OptiNAND HDD models introduce a new SMART attribute -- NAND Health, ID = 90 / 0x5A.

The document also refers to Helium Level (22 / 0x16) as "Internal Environment status".

Hard disk drive specifications, Ultrastar® DC HC560 3.5 inch Serial ATA hard disk drive, Model: WUH722020ALE6L1, WUH722020ALE6L4:

https://documents.westerndigital.com/content/dam/doc-library/en_us/assets/public/western-digital/product/data-center-drives/ultrastar-dc-hc500-series/product-manual-ultrastar-dc-hc560-sata-oem-spec.pdf

ID Attribute Name

1 Raw Read Error Rate

2 Throughput Performance

3 Spin Up Time

4 Start/Stop Count

5 Reallocated Sector Count

7 Seek Error Rate

8 Seek Time Performance

9 Power-On Hours Count

10 Spin Retry Count

12 Device Power Cycle Count

22 Internal Environment status

90 NAND Health

192 Power off Retract count

193 Load Cycle count

194 Temperature

196 Reallocation Event Count

197 Current Pending Sector Count

198 Off-Line Scan Uncorrectable Sector Count

199 Ultra DMA CRC Error Count

203.59.51.80 (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 October 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. S.M.A.R.T. -> Self-Monitoring, Analysis and Reporting Technology. S.M.A.R.T. will become a new DAB page for these two topics and related articles. per discussion consensus. While COMMONNAME and ACROTITLE are important policies, they are not as important to discussion participants as PRECISE and ACCURATE. We want our readers to go where they intend to go, and that will still happen with this DAB. But fewer people will go to the wrong place, and more will go to the precise place they intended. That is the nature of good titling on Wikipedia, to reduce ambiguity. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 15:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

S.M.A.R.T. → Self-Monitoring, Analysis and Reporting Technology – Not the primary topic over SMART criteria, which can also be written as "S.M.A.R.T". * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 15:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, I would say the acronym itself falls under WP:COMMONNAME, similarly to BIOS or UEFI. If a distinction needs to be made, then it should be something like "S.M.A.R.T. (computing)" --Raito wa Kira desu (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NATURALDIS supersedes WP:COMMONNAME here (and the disambiguation you proposed is still ambiguous since SMART criteria can also be used in computing). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria might be generic enough to be used in computing, sure, but I don't see how would that make a "(computing)" suffix relevantly ambiguous. The acronym S.M.A.R.T. almost always refers to the hard disk technology rather than the methodology in a computing context. Besides, WP:NATURALDIS discourages from using obscure names, and I am convinced that the full title of the technology does count as such. --Raito wa Kira desu (talk) 14:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Raito wa Kira desu. I also want to refer to MOS:ACROTITLE. Very few computer persons know what the S.M.A.R.T. acronym actually stands for, but writing it like that, with a period after each letter, will make everyone of them understand. I think both article titles are already distinct enough. SMART criteria is already a natural disambiguation. And I have never heard of that thing :) Both Abbreviations.com and Acronymfinder list this meaning at the top, while the "criteria" meaning is a little bit below. Sure, pageviews tell a little different thing, but I think everything else is overwieghing. --Mango från yttre rymden (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One general exception to this rule deals with our strong preference for natural disambiguation. Many acronyms are used for several things; naming a page with the full name helps to avoid clashes - if you accept the primary topic argument then ACROTITLE does not apply here. And I have no idea what eveerything [sic] else is overwvieing [sic] is trying to say. For the record I had never heard of this meaning before coming across Comparison of S.M.A.R.T. tools as part of an unrelated cleanup project, but neither my nor your prior knowledge is relevant in a primary topic discussion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm questioning the primary topic argument based on what Abbreviations.com and Acronym Finder are saying, and I think that is more significant than pure page view count.

I have read the relevant MOS bits about a dosen times and thought hard about this, and I think this article should keep this title the way it is written now, possibly with an addition to it, as this subject is pretty much solely known by its acronym. The full meaning is obscure to the vast majority of even expert computer users. From WP:NATURALDIS: However, do not use obscure or made-up names. (my bold marking) Note that the exception about natural disambiguation for acronyms in page titles is general and not an absolute, stated in the first sentence you quote in your reply. And this subject doesn't really have a natural disambiguation. Again … do not use obscure … names.

I think both titles are distinctive enough, but if you and possibly others insist on a more detailed title I would go as far as saying that "S.M.A.R.T. (computing)" or something along those lines is a better title than writing the full meaning of the acronym, and that that is within the MOS, because this is the common name by far, and the expanded form is obscure and thus natural disambiguation is invalid. SMART analysis isn't a computing subject even though it can be used in computing.

My unawareness of SMART analysis wasn't an argument, just a note. And it speaks to my disadvantage. You never having heard of this subject before means neither of us can fully assess the importance of these subjects in relation to each other. Therefore none of us can truly argue for a primary topic.

And I can't find any mention of points/periods not being allowed in acronyms as mentioned by SMcCandlish below. On the contrary, the MOS gives examples with periods in between letters.

Sorry for the gibberish-esque last sentence, I was in a hurry and had to cut it short. I have fixed the spelling, but I don't know if it's proper English, but I keep it that way anyway for history. Kind regards. --Mango från yttre rymden (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support: seems like Pppery has this right, in terms of natural disambiguation. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:52, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Computing has been notified of this discussion. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 15:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: to generate a more thorough consensus — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 15:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:PRECISE and because of nom's point about ambiguity, and because of MOS:ACRO (we don't use "X.Y.Z." formatting for acronyms/initialisms, but "XYZ"). PS: I have three SMART monitoring apps on my computers and all three of them use "SMART" not "S.M.A.R.T."; the idea that using the dots is a form of WP:DIFFPUNCT is a fail. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
... and SMART (the correctly punctuated form) has been a disambiguation page since 2004. That is another reason for the move, that never occurred to me. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why remove SMART attributes?

Whole section on what known ATA attributes was removed this November. I always found that info extremely useful. If you think that this does not fit the SMART article, i propose to move it to its own page. Gryxx (talk) 09:44, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing more to say than my edit summary: WP:NOTMANUAL/mostly unsourced/excessive detail * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for mostly unsourced i would rather have a baner informing of that rather then information completely removed. As for excessive detail, as i suggested move SMART attributes to it's own page. Gryxx (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Describing the functionality of a system is hardly a manual. Describing the operating of a system, that is a manual. A list of attributions is certainly encyclopedic. Regards. --Mango från yttre rymden (talk)