# Tick tick sound in external hdd



## billubakra (Oct 8, 2021)

Hi,

Tick tick sound is coming from a wd external hdd, we all know what that means.
*
CrystalDisk Info*



https://imgur.com/a/v0VZGRQ


*
WD Dashboard*



https://imgur.com/a/VPXPmc3




https://imgur.com/a/xA3YT16




https://imgur.com/a/R8omL5P



I didn't know that this software needs an internet connection, so waited for about 4 hours, check the error on top



https://imgur.com/a/ueiT87E



Connected the internet later but it never moved ahead from 90% Will do this test later and will get back

Should I do a test with the now out of support WD Lifeguard Diagnostics software too?

Check the power on count and hours in the first screenshot. This hdd was barely used and was kept stationary. I have no idea why it happened. The quality of WD's hdds, both internal and external, has degraded a lot in the last few years. Will they allow rma on the basis of the first screenshot or will they go by their softwares? Is rma allowed on the basis of the device registration date as per their website or do they need an invoice copy too?

@whitestar_999 @patkim @Desmond @sling-shot @bssunilreddy

Thanks


----------



## whitestar_999 (Oct 8, 2021)

Your hdd is fine at least as per S.M.A.R.T. report. You need to see the "raw values" of pending sector/uncorrectable sector count not current & threshold value(in this case raw values are perfect with zero value).


----------



## billubakra (Oct 8, 2021)

whitestar_999 said:


> Your hdd is fine at least as per S.M.A.R.T. report. You need to see the "raw values" of pending sector/uncorrectable sector count not current & threshold value(in this case raw values are perfect with zero value).


Then why the tick tick sound?
In the first screenshot the current and worst pending sector count value is 200. Not to be taken into consideration?
Data Lifeguard Diagnostic for Windows has been discontinued WD Software
So, using Western Digital Dashboard instead WD Software surprisingly it needs an internet connection while the test is going on. Hope that our data is not going to them. Should I run an extended test with this again which was stuck at 90% last night because there was no internet connection?


----------



## whitestar_999 (Oct 8, 2021)

billubakra said:


> In the first screenshot the current and worst pending sector count value is 200. Not to be taken into consideration?


When current & worst values are same as original values(aka the values when hdd is manufactured) then it has no significance. Only when current & worst value start decreasing from their original default values that they need to be considered & only for critical parameters like sector count. When raw value changes from zero then it also start affecting current & worst value.



billubakra said:


> So, using Western Digital Dashboard instead WD Software surprisingly it needs an internet connection while the test is going on. Hope that our data is not going to them. Should I run an extended test with this again which was stuck at 90% last night because there was no internet connection?


Not sure but at worst WD will likely just be collecting your hdd serial no. & system hardware/windows version info so there shouldn't be any issue running the test with net connectivity.


----------



## billubakra (Oct 8, 2021)

@whitestar_999 
_
When current & worst values are same as original values(aka the values when hdd is manufactured) then it has no significance._

Pardon me for my ignorance, but current value=*worst value, *doesn't this mean danger in simple language?

Also how to make sure that these values of 200 are the same when the hdd was bought? I mean what if the values were 100 or 150 back then?


Borrowed the cable from my friend. The tick tick sound has reduced a bit, not fully gone. Used the same cable for an extended test. It took the Western Digital Dashboard WD Software about an hour to go from 0-50% and about another another to reach 90% but then it was like stuck there. I waited for like 6-7 hours and internet was also connected today, though it wasn't the fastest of them all. Check this screenshot, it doesn't have the no internet connection error like yesterday but still stuck at 90%



https://imgur.com/a/BjOGM3W




When I clicked on cancel, it was cancelled immediately so the software wasn't stuck in limbo for sure. Maybe it is the drive or this crappy ass software which needs internet to do an extended scan. Is there any other reliable software that does extended scan of hdd's? I just want to be sure.


----------



## whitestar_999 (Oct 8, 2021)

This is hdd field, common simple language terminology does not apply here in this case. Current value is not fixed & may increase or decrease but worst value is sort of a record which stays until an even lower record is made. You compare these values with threshold value which is the most important(aka passing marks in simple language). If your current & worst value at one time reach close to threshold value but then afterwards current value improved then you can assume danger is over for now(aka student got just above passing marks in 1st test but later improved the performance in 2nd test to score decently more than passing marks so you know less risk of failing in coming main exam).


----------



## billubakra (Oct 9, 2021)

whitestar_999 said:


> This is hdd field, common simple language terminology does not apply here in this case. Current value is not fixed & may increase or decrease but worst value is sort of a record which stays until an even lower record is made. You compare these values with threshold value which is the most important(aka passing marks in simple language). If your current & worst value at one time reach close to threshold value but then afterwards current value improved then you can assume danger is over for now(aka student got just above passing marks in 1st test but later improved the performance in 2nd test to score decently more than passing marks so you know less risk of failing in coming main exam).


Got it about the threshold value. What is raw value for?

Last time a hdd of mine got kaput, I posted a thread here Current pending sector count error why was threshold value zero here? The raw value is multiple zeros and then 1. But the screenshots posted in this thread only shows a single zero. Is it okay? I have set the raw values to 10 [DEC]

As you can see in the last post, the extended test by the wd tool got stuck at 90%.  Is that a sign of danger? Should I try it with some other tool? If yes then please suggest a good one. Do these extended tests ruin the health of a hdd?


----------



## whitestar_999 (Oct 9, 2021)

Raw value basically means the actual no. of times a parameter happened so for a pending sector count, raw value of 1 means 1 pending sector happened.

For some parameters threshold value is zero because they are either too insignificant(aka no need to even look at them) or too important(aka have to be perfect). Pending sector count is a critical value with zero threshold because even if there is one single pending sector count happen(aka raw value 1) then theoretically your hdd is at risk of failing. There is no point in creating a non-zero threshold value for such critical parameter because anything other than 0 means you are guessing that X number of pending sectors is ok but Y number is not which is not possible because some ppl have their hdd running for years with 10-20 pending sectors while some have their hdd failed within weeks of getting just 1 pending sector.

Best test in my opinion, right click the external drive in My Computer & select format & then uncheck the quick format option aka do the full format. If a hdd can survive a full format with no decrease/negative change in critical parameter values before & after the format then it is pretty much confirmed that hdd is working fine. Keep in mind though that full format of a drive basically means writing the same amount of data as size of drive so for the usual 2TB+ drives it means hours of wait for format to finish.


----------



## billubakra (Oct 9, 2021)

whitestar_999 said:


> Raw value basically means the actual no. of times a parameter happened so for a pending sector count, raw value of 1 means 1 pending sector happened.
> 
> For some parameters threshold value is zero because they are either too insignificant(aka no need to even look at them) or too important(aka have to be perfect). Pending sector count is a critical value with zero threshold because even if there is one single pending sector count happen(aka raw value 1) then theoretically your hdd is at risk of failing. There is no point in creating a non-zero threshold value for such critical parameter because anything other than 0 means you are guessing that X number of pending sectors is ok but Y number is not which is not possible because some ppl have their hdd running for years with 10-20 pending sectors while some have their hdd failed within weeks of getting just 1 pending sector.
> 
> Best test in my opinion, right click the external drive in My Computer & select format & then uncheck the quick format option aka do the full format. If a hdd can survive a full format with no decrease/negative change in critical parameter values before & after the format then it is pretty much confirmed that hdd is working fine. Keep in mind though that full format of a drive basically means writing the same amount of data as size of drive so for the usual 2TB+ drives it means hours of wait for format to finish.


_Raw value basically means the actual no. of times a parameter happened so for a pending sector count, raw value of 1 means 1 pending sector happened.

For some parameters threshold value is zero because they are either too insignificant(aka no need to even look at them) or too important(aka have to be perfect). Pending sector count is a critical value with zero threshold because even if there is one single pending sector count happen(aka raw value 1) then theoretically your hdd is at risk of failing. There is no point in creating a non-zero threshold value for such critical parameter because anything other than 0 means you are guessing that X number of pending sectors is ok but Y number is not which is not possible because some ppl have their hdd running for years with 10-20 pending sectors while some have their hdd failed within weeks of getting just 1 pending sector._

Thanks. Is there any article/link from where I can read more about this?


_Keep in mind though that full format of a drive basically means writing the same amount of data as size of drive so for the usual 2TB+ drives it means hours of wait for format to finish._
I didn't know that Windows also writes the drive fully under the non quick format option. I thought only professional softwares do that.

The raw value is multiple zeros and then 1 in the older thread that I posted. But the screenshots posted in this thread only shows a single zero. Why is that so? I have set the raw values to 10 [DEC]


----------



## whitestar_999 (Oct 10, 2021)

*www.hdsentinel.com/smart/index.php


billubakra said:


> The raw value is multiple zeros and then 1 in the older thread that I posted. But the screenshots posted in this thread only shows a single zero. Why is that so? I have set the raw values to 10 [DEC]


When you set raw values to display in 10[DEC] aka normal decimal number system then they show as usual but if you set the default option of 16[HEX] then they will show in hexadecimal format which show a number in 12 digits/places.


----------



## billubakra (Oct 10, 2021)

whitestar_999 said:


> *www.hdsentinel.com/smart/index.php
> 
> When you set raw values to display in 10[DEC] aka normal decimal number system then they show as usual but if you set the default option of 16[HEX] then they will show in hexadecimal format which show a number in 12 digits/places.


Thanks for the link, will read it later.

Should I post the ss of this drive after changing it 16[HEX] I want to compare it to the older thread's ss.


----------



## billubakra (Oct 10, 2021)

@whitestar_999 

Check this



https://imgur.com/a/EelFomU


Older one



https://imgur.com/a/v0VZGRQ


All fields look okay?


----------



## whitestar_999 (Oct 11, 2021)

billubakra said:


> All fields look okay?


Looks fine. Of course this does not mean this hdd is 100% safe, basic thumb rule of hdd is always keep copy of your important data in at least 2 different hdd as any hdd can fail at any time.


----------



## vidhubhushan (Oct 11, 2021)

whitestar_999 said:


> Looks fine. Of course this does not mean this hdd is 100% safe, basic thumb rule of hdd is always keep copy of your important data in at least 2 different hdd as any hdd can fail at any time.


this is so bloody irritating to copy to another again. i remember i gave some cobol programs on a 5.25 inch floppy disk to a girl during computer training days. she dropped it in parking and some dust entered the cover. she was extremely terrified. someone asked her to wash it with surf and then dry it in the sun. since 3-4 of them said the same thing, she thought it was ok and did the same. after 3-4 days when she reached the institute, she gave a surf smelling clean disk to the same person who asked her to clean and told him the whole thing. he too was terrified knowing it was mine. still they inserted it in the computer and it worked. that guy was completely shocked and told the whole thing under shock to a friend of mine who told me the same next day.
nowadays if you leave a Rs.10000 hdd on the table for 15 days, you can't be sure if it is going to work after that. the word quality has lost its meaning.


----------



## whitestar_999 (Oct 11, 2021)

vidhubhushan said:


> this is so bloody irritating to copy to another again. i remember i gave some cobol programs on a 5.25 inch floppy disk to a girl during computer training days. she dropped it in parking and some dust entered the cover. she was extremely terrified. someone asked her to wash it with surf and then dry it in the sun. since 3-4 of them said the same thing, she thought it was ok and did the same. after 3-4 days when she reached the institute, she gave a surf smelling clean disk to the same person who asked her to clean and told him the whole thing. he too was terrified knowing it was mine. still they inserted it in the computer and it worked. that guy was completely shocked and told the whole thing under shock to a friend of mine who told me the same next day.
> nowadays if you leave a Rs.10000 hdd on the table for 15 days, you can't be sure if it is going to work after that. the word quality has lost its meaning.


 Reminded me of this:






Btw it all depends on various factors, in my case when I started using floppy disks in 2003 I found them to be very unreliable with sometimes floppy disk going bad just between taking it out of one pc & inserting it in another pc a few minutes later. HDD nowadays have TB+ capacity with multiple platters with so much data density that even a speck/particle of dust can corrupt the hdd.


----------



## vidhubhushan (Oct 11, 2021)

whitestar_999 said:


> Reminded me of this:
> 
> 
> Btw it all depends on various factors, in my case when I started using floppy disks in 2003 I found them to be very unreliable with sometimes floppy disk going bad just between taking it out of one pc & inserting it in another pc a few minutes later. HDD nowadays have TB+ capacity with multiple platters with so much data density that even a speck/particle of dust can corrupt the hdd.



that must have been 1.44MB 3.5 inch hard ones which lost reliability by 2000 iirc. i remember opening a new sony disk box, inserting it and when found not working throwing it in dustbin. when i did the same with 5 one after another, the person standing in front of me was too shocked & asked sir drive mein problem hogi. i said nahi ye san aise hi aati hain. only 4 of them worked.
the 5.25 inch 360KB or 1.2MB ones were extremely reliable.


----------



## whitestar_999 (Oct 12, 2021)

vidhubhushan said:


> that must have been 1.44MB 3.5 inch hard ones which lost reliability by 2000 iirc. i remember opening a new sony disk box, inserting it and when found not working throwing it in dustbin. when i did the same with 5 one after another, the person standing in front of me was too shocked & asked sir drive mein problem hogi. i said nahi ye san aise hi aati hain. only 4 of them worked.
> the 5.25 inch 360KB or 1.2MB ones were extremely reliable.


Yes it was the 1.44MB ones. Also I have a seagate 250gb hdd from 2006 with 60000+ hours of activity & still working last time I checked a few months ago.


----------



## vidhubhushan (Oct 12, 2021)

whitestar_999 said:


> Yes it was the 1.44MB ones. Also I have a seagate 250gb hdd from 2006 with 60000+ hours of activity & still working last time I checked a few months ago.


i don't have any hdd working that old. first one i saw was of 20MB (not GB).


----------

