Talk:Self-Monitoring, Analysis and Reporting Technology

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)

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)

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)

---

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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)

  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)

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)

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

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

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

• 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)

  ... 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)

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)

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)

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)— Gryxx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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)

This is a perfect example of WP:NOTAMANUAL. It's most troubling that it had to say "as manufacturers do not agree on these attributes, this is a general guide only". WIkipedia is not a how-to guide. That's wiki-how. It is not a knowledge base for how to use things like this. It is not a repository for indiscriminate information. If manufacturers do not agree on these things, it probably does not belong on wikipedia. If this information is not WP:DUE, it does not belong on the page. And I agree with @Pppery that it is absolutely WP:UNDUE. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Fair point, but where to preserve that information then? It is useful, and most pages I know just link to this article when dealing with SMART attributes. Gryxx (talk) 09:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what even makes said section a how-to guide. It doesn't imperatively tell you how to do anything, in fact it doesn't include any instructions at all, which is what makes a how-to guide, a how-to guide in the first place (and is what seems to be the main decisive factor for the application of WP:NOTAMANUAL too). It is foremost a description of the various parameters reported by SMART-compliant drives. Just because these are not completely standardized does not necessarily mean it does not belong on Wikipedia either, but that would be a topic for another discussion. Key point is, this is not a manual. --Raito wa Kira desu (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

For me, the removal of the SMART attributes is a desecration of what used to be a useful resource. This page is now a shell of its former self. Nobody cares if the storage manufacturers cannot agree precisely on the implementation of each attribute. As long as the reader is made aware that this is the case, then the information remains valid. Please reinstate this material and reverse this travesty. 106.69.64.155 (talk) 00:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Known NVMe S.M.A.R.T. attributes

I have issues with this statement:

"NVMe specification has defined unified S.M.A.R.T. attributes for different drive manufacturers."

The NVMe standard does not assign IDs to the SMART attributes. In fact I see no such definitions in the standard.

See page 122:

https://nvmexpress.org/wp-content/uploads/NVM-Express-1_4-2019.06.10-Ratified.pdf

The IDs used in this wiki appear to be those which have been arbitrarily assigned by the author of CrystalDiskInfo. Other software assigns different IDs. For example, the author of AIDA64 has chosen to use the byte position of the attribute as its ID.

In the case of Media and Data Integrity Errors, CrystalDiskInfo assigns an ID of 0x0E whereas AIDA64 assigns an ID of 160. Smartctl (smartmontools) does not display any IDs.

Furthermore, there are many more attributes in the standard than are listed in the wiki.

See Figure 194: Get Log Page – SMART / Health Information Log (page 122). 106.69.64.155 (talk) 03:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

BASIC definitions of "VALUE" "WORST" "THRESH"

Nowhere in the article are these terms defined. And I am not talking about specific values of these numbers; I just mean the most basic, sort-of dictionary meaning of each. In particular, I am curious to understand the meaning of "WORST" (not "worst," just to be precise here). Does it mean the worst number that "VALUE" has ever attained? Or is it merely a warning value that never changes?

I notice that on my own drives, the "WORST" number does not seem to change, at least for some attributes, and this may have to do with vendor-specific issues.

Please don't answer with a request for specific values I am seeing for "WORST"--think of my request like this: "Chair" -- a furnishing for sitting on. Not, "well, it depends when one is sitting on the chair," or "how wide is the person's butt?" Generic definition, or what the original intent was, and maybe a bit about how each vendor has implemented "WORST."

Thank you. 73.116.44.30 (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)