If a HDD sounds like a printer or a floppy drive from the 80s, is it dying?

I have this HDD that started to make unfamiliar sounds when doing intensive binary file comparisons. It’s a WD Caviar Black, SATA3, 1 TB, WD1002FAEX. I don’t have the exact age right now, but it has been around for some years. I have a second drive of the same model that I can potentially do some comparisons with.

In the waveform and linked audio file below, you’re looking at a binary comparison of 1.00 GB (1,075,721,579 bytes) worth of files in Beyond Compare. There are 25 files in total: 10 video files worth 990 MB and 15 picture files worth 35 MB. The files are roughly evenly distributed in the sequence, but with somewhat more picture files (7 files) at the beginning and at the end (5 files). Some smaller video files (20 - 70 MB) are in the middle and the largest file (170 MB video file) is at the very beginning. The last three files are video files (128 MB, 134 MB, 116 MB). The larger the file, the deeper and more constant the sound is. The smaller the file, the more erratic the sound is. My uneducated guess is that it comes from more sequential reading vs. more random reading and movement of the head.

Have a listen to it on this link. It’s a Jumpshare link - a file sharing service with support for audio files. Note that audio has been normalized (turn your volume down).

This is a recent development, as I started troubleshooting Windows component store corruption, SSD slow performance and errors, and most recently finding out that I had a faulty RAM module. The relevance of this is that the computer has been lifted up, and brought in to another room, put on a desk and then moved back and put back down on the floor several times. I have never dropped it or bumped it, but it’s a heavy computer, with three HDDs in the disk cage that moves and rattles around slightly. Each disk has its own tray. So in terms of acoustics, I’m thinking this may influence what I’m hearing. But the sound has not gone away over the past several days, and the disk seems to be okay, although I have not ran any test on it yet.

So what do you guys think? Have you heard this sound before? Is the disk in fact dying? Should I replace it immediately? I have a backup of the data on it, but I wouldn’t want to replace it just because it’s noisy when doing intensive binary file comparisons. It’s not like I will be doing file comparisons on it every day. As long as the disk is healthy, I see no reason to replace it, other than to prevent data loss, in case you don’t have a backup.

I ran a short test using “Dashboard” 4.2.2.5.

“The S.M.A.R.T. Diagnostic Short Test was successful.
No problems were detected.”

I’m running the long test (“Extended Diagnostic”) now. It’s not fast. It’s at 20% after 20 minuts. It should finish in about 1.5 hours.

But where are the proper diagnostic programs? I can’t remember what they were called. The ones that you can boot up and run all the diagnostics you want, including some fancy ones that generate and save reports at the end?

The long test is still running. It’s at 70% now, and it’s been running for 1 hour and 15 minutes. So it will take a little longer than I anticipated. But it’s getting there.

Meanwhile, I have found that the classic WD diagnostic tool I remembered using. It’s called DLGDIAG - Data LifeGuard Diagnostics - and it was discontinued 3 years ago.

"Data Lifeguard (WinDLG) End of Support

WD Data Lifeguard Diagnostics for Windows is a utility that test WD internal and external drives. In addition, the utility can be used to collect the model number and the serial number of the WD drives attached to the system.

WD is focused on providing exceptional customer experiences with our products. With that focus, from time to time we retire legacy software products that are no longer consistent with WD’s customer experience ecosystem. The WD Data Lifeguard Diagnostics for Windows software is no longer available for download, and technical support will no longer be provided effective October 1, 2021. You can continue to use your product and the application, but no software updates will be provided in the future."

This is the Windows version of the program. I believe there was a bootable version too, and I’m not sure if that’s discontinued also.

But notice! It’s with focus on “providing exceptional customer experiences” that WD has decided to “retire legacy software products that are no longer consistent with WD’s customer experience ecosystem”. So it’s not that this tool doesn’t provide “exceptional customer experiences” - it’s that it’s no longer consistent with the “customer experience ecosystem”. Does anyone here (or elsewhere) understand what on Earth they’re yapping about? :thinking:

I could have sworn that this exceptional software was focused on delivering a promise of ecosystem focus in future delivery updates through continued and effective application of the product. :crazy_face: Now… English may not be my first language, but man do these people know how to twist your mind with their mere tongues! :laughing:

After 1 hour and 40 minutes, the long test is finished. Nothing wrong it says… :thinking:

“The S.M.A.R.T. Diagnostic Extended Test was successful.
No problems were detected.”

It’s not dying then… I guess.

:man_shrugging:

It may just so be that it likes the sound of 80s. :partying_face:

Everything is fine, all systems go, but the reading speed is down in 10 MB/s territory. I just saw this!

After the long test, doing another binary comparison in Beyond Compare resulted in quite operation, as expected. The noise was gone. You can see in the picture below, in the lower left corner (Disk transfer rate) that the reading speed was in 125 MB/s territory. But immediately after that, I did a second run, making sure I clear the cache in Beyond Compare, and the reading speed dropped to 10 MB/s territory again and the noise was back again.

I then restarted the application, and did a third test using another set of files. Reading speed was yet again in 10 MB/s territory and only occasionally jumping up to just over 60 MB/s. I’m not sure if it’s the application itself causing this, and possibly Windows which is not in a great shape as it stands, with corrupted component store and some other quirks. I will have to do more testing.

WD’s customer experience ecosystem

Yes, that me laugh, too, but I can do better. :-)))

Me:

“Please create a paragraph consisting of meaningless marketing jargon.”

Copilot (Microsoft’s AI):

“In today’s dynamic business ecosystem, our unparalleled, next-generation solutions leverage cutting-edge synergies to catalyze holistic transformations, driving exponential growth and optimizing every customer touchpoint. Harnessing proactive insights and agile methodologies, we empower stakeholders to seamlessly integrate value-added paradigms for sustained, competitive advantage.”

1 Like

I suggest you perform a full surface scan with HddScan or Victoria for Windows (better). Both tools will identify “slow” sectors, ie those that require read retries.

HDD technology of 2011 this will never have comparable performance with newer models.

Neither HDD de-frag tools can help much. You need to try latest WD Gold 2 TB, fresher and faster technology, with highest reliability score.

Yeah, it’s pretty old but I didn’t know it was that old. I have two of these though, and the one I’m having issues with is actually 2 years younger according to Victoria software, it’s from 2013. Also, I have only used them for storage. I think I used one of them as a system disk at one point before I got my first SSD disk, and then repurposed it for storage. They are excellent hard drives. As their age proves it too. I have never had any issues with them, until one of them started making these weird noises, and I think this is the one that has been used least of the two.

I am of the opinion that the older technology was made to last much longer than what we currently have with higher and higher storage densities. Also, in my experience, SSD disks without moving parts last much shorter than HDD disks with moving parts.

Why WD Gold and not a WD Black? I looked at some newer models to buy yesterday, but I only found a “WD Gold 1TB 7200rpm 128MB” (WD1005FBYZ) at my favorite computer store. And it’s only ordered in, they don’t have it in stock. It’s not popular I guess. For only 8 EUR more I can have a “Samsung 870 EVO SATA SSD 1TB” (MZ-77E1T0B/EU). So at that point it becomes a question of SSD vs. HDD. Like I said, in my experience, the HDD kind lasts longer. Much longer! And that’s what I want and need. Reliability, and longevity. So I would go with HDD anyway.

For 8.7 EUR more than the WD Gold model, they have a “WD Red Plus 4TB 5400rpm 256MB” (WD40EFPX) in stock. I’m more compelled to spend the money on this one rather than WD Gold or the Samsung SSD. I get more value for my money, more capacity specifically. Four times as much! For about the same price. And it’s a Plus model too, with CMR.

Is the WD Gold made with CMR or SMR? And is the WD Black made with CMR or SMR? I won’t be having SMR unless someone tricks me into buying it, for example by the same marketing people that wrote that paragraph I cited above. I have already been using one of these WD Red drives in my system, alongside the WD Black models I already mentioned. I have the WD Red 4 TB, but the older version that didn’t see it necessary to distinguish it by “Plus” branding. It was plain and simple CMR technology, when there was no need to use special names to indicate it.

So I’m more interested in the WD Red series for storage. Even if not used in a NAS, they are excellent for storage in a desktop system too. As long as they use CMR technology. Unless I switch to Toshiba of course. They too use the “CMR” technology. You know it’s silly that we even need to have an acronym to indicate what it means to be a high quality mechanical hard drive! But that’s where we are now.

WD Gold 1TB 7200rpm 128MB (WD1005FBYZ)           113.27 EUR
WD Red Plus 4TB 5400rpm 256MB (WD40EFPX)         121.99 EUR
WD Black Desktop 2TB 7200rpm 64MB (WD2003FZEX)   148.15 EUR
Toshiba N300 NAS 4TB (HDWG440UZSVA)              117.63 EUR

I don’t use Euros, but I have converted the prices to Euros to make it easier for people from other countries to compare.

Model         Capacity Cache   Techno   ReadSpeed
WD1005FBYZ    1 TB     128 MB  NA       184 MB/s
WD40EFPX      4 TB     256 MB  CMR      180 MB/s
WD2003FZEX    2 TB      64 MB  NA       150 MB/s
HDWG440UZSVA  4 TB     256 MB  CMR      232 MB/s

Why is the WD Black stuck on 64 MB? I have something like 64 MB cache in my several years old WD Red drive. Seems like it’s not up to date with the times. Why is it so much more expensive than the others if it only has 64 MB cache? Shouldn’t the higher asking price make up for having faster and higher capacity cache chips? Or is it merely the name “WD Black” that makes it more expensive? Slap on a “gaming” sticker on it and you can charge twice as much for it. It’s interesting how that marketing thing works, in general. But specifically, in this case, why is the WD Black more expensive and why does it have so much less cache by comparison? I refuse to believe that it’s just a marketing trick such as naming and color.

Here is the SMART data from Victoria 5.37 for the noisy drive. I have not done any kind of test yet.

WDC WD1002FAEX-00Z3A0   WD-WCAXXXXXXXX9
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  ID      Name                   Value  Worst  Tresh       Raw    Health
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  1 Raw read error rate                 200    200     51                0   ••••• 
  3 Spin-up time                        177    175     21             4125   ••••• 
  4 Number of spin-up times              83     83      0            17646   ••••  
  5 Reallocated sector count            200    200    140                0   ••••• 
  7 Seek error rate                     100    253      0                0   ••••• 
  9 Power-on time                        73     73      0            20114   •••   
 10 Spin-up retries                     100    100      0                0   ••••• 
 11 Recalibration retries               100    100      0                0   ••••• 
 12 Power cycle count                    93     93      0             7843   ••••  
192 Power-off retract count             200    200      0              725   ••••• 
193 Load/unload cycle count             195    195      0            16920   ••••• 
194 HDA Temperature                     117    106      0        30°C/86°F   ••••  
196 Reallocated event count             200    200      0                0   ••••• 
197 Current pending sectors             200    200      0                0   ••••• 
198 Offline uncorrectable sectors count      200    200      0                0   ••••• 
199 Ultra DMA CRC errors                200    200      0                0   ••••• 
200 Multi zone error rate               200    200      0                0   •••••

Here is the passport data.

    Model: WDC WD1002FAEX-00Z3A0               
  Firmware 05.01D05                            
    Serial •••••••                             
  Capacity 1953525168 LBAs            1.0 TB   
      CHS: 16383/16/63                8 GB     
 S.M.A.R.T Enabled, Errlog, Selftest           
     Cache 29.6 MB; L/A=ON; Wr=ON;    ok       
   Support LBA, HPA, DLM, DCO, DMA    UDMA-6   
Erase Time ~ 2 hours 50 minutes                
  Security OFF, Frozen                Frozen!  
    ATA-8: SATA3, NCQ, PEC, SCT, SFDLM         
      SCT: AC1, AC2, AC4, AC5                  
    Sector Logic 512 bytes            Phys 512 
                                               
           Drive technical info:               
     Date: 08-15-2013                          
    Alias: '0000h'                             
 RAM chip: 64 MB                               
    Disks: 2                                   
    Heads: 4 phys / 4 active                   
    Zones: 21                                  
   Wedges: 288                                 
 Real RPM: 7200

Here is the SMART data for the better of the two drives.

WDC WD1002FAEX-00Z3A0   WD-WCAXXXXXXXX5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  ID      Name                   Value  Worst  Tresh       Raw    Health
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  1 Raw read error rate                 200    200     51               30   ••••• 
  3 Spin-up time                        170    169     21             4491   ••••• 
  4 Number of spin-up times              64     64      0            36323   •••   
  5 Reallocated sector count            200    200    140                0   ••••• 
  7 Seek error rate                     200    200      0                0   ••••• 
  9 Power-on time                        40     40      0            44181   ••    
 10 Spin-up retries                     100    100      0                0   ••••• 
 11 Recalibration retries               100    100      0                0   ••••• 
 12 Power cycle count                    87     87      0            13393   ••••  
192 Power-off retract count             199    199      0             1164   ••••• 
193 Load/unload cycle count             189    189      0            35158   ••••• 
194 HDA Temperature                     115     92      0        32°C/90°F   ••••  
196 Reallocated event count             200    200      0                0   ••••• 
197 Current pending sectors             200    200      0                0   ••••• 
198 Offline uncorrectable sectors count      200    200      0                0   ••••• 
199 Ultra DMA CRC errors                200    200      0                0   ••••• 
200 Multi zone error rate               200    200      0                0   •••••

And here is its passport data.

    Model: WDC WD1002FAEX-00Z3A0               
  Firmware 05.01D05                            
    Serial •••••••                             
  Capacity 1953525168 LBAs            1.0 TB   
      CHS: 16383/16/63                8 GB     
 S.M.A.R.T Enabled, Errlog, Selftest           
     Cache 29.6 MB; L/A=ON; Wr=ON;    ok       
   Support LBA, HPA, AAM, DLM, DCO, DMAUDMA-6   
   AAM Val 254                        Maximum  
Erase Time ~ 2 hours 48 minutes                
  Security OFF, Frozen                Frozen!  
    ATA-8: SATA3, NCQ, PEC, SCT, SFDLM         
      SCT: AC1, AC2, AC4, AC5                  
    Sector Logic 512 bytes            Phys 512 
                                               
           Drive technical info:               
     Date: 01-07-2011                          
    Alias: '0000h'                             
 RAM chip: 64 MB                               
    Disks: 2                                   
    Heads: 4 phys / 4 active                   
    Zones: 21                                  
   Wedges: 288                                 
 Real RPM: 7200

WD Gold series includes much more than reading heads, and an electric motor.
2TB this offers much higher transfer at all sort of files, much friendlier for Windows based system as Operating system HDD. Designed for single use, and at RAID arrays with out performance penalty.

This is the best choice for the ones whom own high-end motherboard (price point 200 Euro +).
The 1TB Gold this is somewhat bandwidth limited, a good choice but not the ideal.
HDD age this is no proof of HDD quality, desktop PC this is unable to stress HDD enough.
The workload is very low, compared to server applications.

Would you say that WD Gold 2 TB is preferable over WD Black 2 TB as a storage disk on a Windows desktop? How do these drives compare? Isn’t the Gold series meant for servers?

The only WD internal disks drives I have had in my systems were the WD Green, WD Black, and WD Red. I didn’t have the WD Blue. The WD Blue was the mainstream version for system disks, and they were cheaper than the WD Black, which were for high-end performance PCs. The WD Green 1.5 TB failed on me within 2 years or so and it was only used for storage. That was my single biggest disappointment as far as WD disk drives go. Otherwise I was always satisfied with WD disk drives.

I know my disk drives are old and should be replaced with something newer, but right now I’m having other issues with my system as well. I have a faulty RAM module that I’m in the process of replacing. And so I’m not really ready yet to put the money and time on replacing the HDDs as well. But I’ll have a another look at the WD Gold drives when time comes to buy a replacement.

Thanks for pointing out that WD Gold has better read performance in the 2 TB model. I will have a look at that. I guess it has more heads per platter. Unfortunately, the store I usually buy computer parts from don’t have the 2 TB model, but I can buy it somewhere else. They have all models, from 1 TB up to 24 TB, but from 1 TB they jump to 8 TB.

It’s easy to spend money on a new hard drive, but what do you guys think about the problem I’m reporting on? Why is it making these noises? Is it a sign of worn out mechanics? Time for retirement?

I did a quick surface test on both using Victoria 5.37. Here are the results.

The noisy drive:
Maximum 154 MB/s, Average 109 MB/s, Minimum 64 MB/s.

The not so noisy (good) drive:
Maximum: 137 MB/s, Average 97 MB/s, Minimum 58 MB/s.

I need more time to do a full surface scan. But these quick results are in line with what I’ve seen yesterday by doing regular file copy operations to test the read and write speed. They both read at around 125 MB/s as seen in Task Manager, which is normal, and the noisy one doesn’t make much of a noise when doing large file read or write operations. So I’m not ready to give up on it. The main issue I have with it is the noise. This very mechanical noise. But it’s not the click of death and it’s not a grinding noise. So I don’t think there is any risk to data.

How can I test and find the cause of the noise? I see the Victoria software has some tests for acoustics and mechanics of the drive. But I’m not sure how to use that. Any advice?

I completed a full surface scan on the noisy drive, using Victoria software. See the graph below.
Maximum: 138 MB/s, Average 100 MB/s, Minimum 63 MB/s.

It took 2 hours and 39 minuts. No noise, and no errors. Nothing unusual. What else can I do to bring out the noisy behavior and 10 MB/s reading speed? Maybe I need to do a random read instead of sequential read?

In many cases WD Gold = HGST.

https://files.icp-deutschland.de/produkte/KA010727/web/WD-Gold-note-EOL-20180409.pdf

Product manual:

https://www.rxelectronics.ru/datasheet/f8/96hd1tb-st-wd7ke1.pdf

In your case the WD1005FBYZ-01YCBB2 is a native WD model, ie the firmware is native WD, not HGST. In most cases a native HGST HDD will be rebadged as a WD model.

One way to tell is by the WWN on the label. “50014EE” is WD’s WWN.

https://dynamic-surplus.com/cdn/shop/products/123f23bb-f7cd-5bed-a850-b5a3f243bbe1_1024x1024@2x.jpg?v=1660140957

This is the HUS7221T1TALA604. It’s the same WD drive because the WWN belongs to WD.

https://files.ekmcdn.com/itinstock/images/hgst-ultrastar-hus722t1tala604-3.5-1tb-7.2k-sata-6gbp-s-hard-drive-hdd-1w10018-59318-p.jpg

The reason for the periodic slowdowns might be background tasks in Windows requiring the attention of the CPU. Victoria hasn’t detected any “slow” sectors (1.0s and 3.0s), nor are there any reallocations or pending reallocations, so your drives look good.

1 Like

Long story in sort, WD Gold has a greater number of features, all assisting in favor of overall performance, when they are used with a motherboard design of 2014 and newer.
And especially with a motherboard this including RAID Array controller.

Basic SATA controller, this support basic set of HDD commands.
SATA + RAID controller, this support extended set of HDD commands.

HDD alone this has internally a separate logic interface, for it own maintenance tasks.

Over all benefits they are delivered when the HDD follows and executes all commands delivered due a motherboard controller.

(WD’s WWN) All recently produced HDD they will come with WD’s WWN and this is to be expected.

HGST HDD they are not produced any more.

@ Kiriakos-GR, AIUI, there are still two development teams. One produces drives with native WD firmware architecture, while the other produces drives with native HGST firmware. I haven’t encountered the latest high capacity drives, but they will undoubtedly be helium models. The WWN isn’t the only way to distinguish between the two. HGST PCB part numbers typically begin with OB or OA, whereas WD PCB numbers are of the form 2060-nnnnnn. I don’t know if this has changed as well, but if you show me the label of a 20TB+ drive, I might be able to identify the architecture.

Edit:

This 22TB WD drive (July 31, 2023) is actually a HGST:

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/wd-gold-22tb-hdd-review

This 27TB drive (Model Number 0F62898, Ultrastar DC HC680 Data Center HDD) is a HGST:

https://www.westerndigital.com/en-au/products/internal-drives/data-center-drives/ultrastar-dc-hc680-hdd?sku=0F62898

… there are still two development teams … This is your version of a story and or a bed time story.
None of the posted links works as confirmation in your favor.

I did talked about in hardware production and labeling.
Stay on topic or stay silent.