Seagate drive "FAILURE"

[HKPostOffice]

I just ran ReadSpeed on my laptop. The SSD was nice and consistent, but the Seagate dive came up with "FAILURE".

The drive runs fine in Windows 10 and isn't that old. Why would this be?

Driv Size  Drive Identity     Location:    0      25%     50%     75%     100
---- ----- ---------------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
 83  256GB TS256GMTS400S                 494.8   503.8   543.1   543.9   531.5
 84  2.0TB ST2000LM015-2E8174           FAILURE FAILURE FAILURE FAILURE FAILURE

                  Benchmarked: Thursday, 2021-01-07 at 11:40

 

[Steve]

That's interesting. The only time that's expected is when there are read errors on the drive that prevent its success.
When the SSD is working, you'll see the white progress bar across the top moving smoothly ONCE for each of the five locations.
What do you see when the Seagate drive is being tested??

 

[HKPostOffice]

Hello Steve,

I ran it again, the progress bar ran smoothly and finished successfully this time.

The speed really tapers off at the end of this drive.

   NOTE: A faster SATA drive is attached to a slower SATA link. You may add
         the /ident command-line option to display and identify the drive.

Driv Size  Drive Identity     Location:    0      25%     50%     75%     100
---- ----- ---------------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
 81  256GB TS256GMTS400S                 494.9   503.5   542.2   543.8   531.4
 82  2.0TB ST2000LM015-2E8174            128.7   128.3   112.6    91.9    63.0

                  Benchmarked: Thursday, 2021-01-07 at 12:16

 

[Steve]

@HKPostOffice : Thanks for the re-run. Something must have just gotten off on the wrong foot!

And, yeah... What we're all seeing is that our “spinners” are HALF the speed at their end than at their front. This makes sense when you consider that the inner track's circumference is half that of the outer track. Thanks for your reports!

 

[PHolder]

@Steve I not the second run has the warning about a slower SATA link that the first one did not have. Could that be related to the FAILURE messages?

 

[Steve]

@PHolder : A lot appears to be different. Notice that the BIOS drives also changed from 83 & 84 to 81 & 82 later. Whatever is was that happened the first time was quite weird!