Bug 1054593

Summary: Two new drive strings for the hddtemp database for Samsung SSD drives
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Edward Kuns <eddie.kuns>
Component: hddtempAssignee: Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 19CC: eddie.kuns, ville.skytta
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: x86_64   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: hddtemp-0.3-0.30.beta15.fc19 Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2014-01-28 04:39:22 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Edward Kuns 2014-01-17 05:44:11 UTC
Description of problem:

Two Samsung SSD drives aren't detected.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

hddtemp-0.3-0.26.beta15.fc19.x86_64

Details:

Here are two new lines for the hddtemp database:

"Samsung SSD 840 PRO Serise"                190  C  "SAMSUNG SSD 840 PRO"
"SAMSUNG SSD 830 Series"                190  C    "SAMSUNG SSD 830"

I added these at line 277.  This allows the utility to read the sensors of the two named SSD drives, which I have.  Yes the 840 Pro has a misspelling in the data it returns.  It also returns a bogus character in its name, as you can see from the output below:

# hddtemp --debug /dev/sda

================= hddtemp 0.3-beta15 ==================
Model: Samsung SSD 840 PRO Serise              �

field(5)     = 0
field(9)     = 188
field(12)     = 2
field(177)     = 16
field(179)     = 0
field(181)     = 0
field(182)     = 0
field(183)     = 0
field(187)     = 0
field(190)     = 31
field(195)     = 0
field(199)     = 0
field(235)     = 1
field(241)     = 205


# hddtemp --debug /dev/sdb

================= hddtemp 0.3-beta15 ==================
Model: SAMSUNG SSD 830 Series

field(5)     = 0
field(9)     = 191
field(12)     = 13
field(177)     = 19
field(179)     = 0
field(181)     = 0
field(182)     = 0
field(183)     = 0
field(187)     = 0
field(190)     = 29
field(195)     = 0
field(199)     = 0
field(235)     = 12
field(241)     = 128

I sent the above information to the email address in the man page for hddtemp and got an immediate bounce, so I am not certain where the ultimate source control is located, today, for hddtemp.  With the above information, at least Fedora can properly detect these SSD drives.  I also have two physical drives, and the temperature data returned by the SSD drives correlates well with the temperature data returned by they physical drives.

Comment 1 Ville Skyttä 2014-01-18 13:23:30 UTC
Some searching around the web tells me that these aren't the only drives that lack attribute 194 but do have useful data in 190, so here's a try for something more generic: try 190 if 194 doesn't exist by default (smartd does that too):

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=492107

Could you try it out and let me know if it works for you? It's built for Rawhide but can be installed as is on F-19.

Comment 2 Edward Kuns 2014-01-18 19:17:11 UTC
I tried it and it works perfectly.  Thank you.  Great idea to keep the database to only exceptions.  It's probably a good idea, however, to keep a header describing the data.  Something like this:

# Minimal database for drives not covered by defaults (attributes 194 and 190).
# hddtemp will first try S.M.A.R.T. attribute 194.  If it does not exist, it will
# try attribute 190.
#
# The four columns are:
# 1) Regular expression matching the drive identification, which you see as the
#    Model in the output of:  hddtemp --debug /dev/drive
# 2) S.M.A.R.T. attribute number to get drive temperature. A value of zero
#    means that we know that the drive doesn't have a temperature sensor.
# 3) Temperature units reported (C or F).
# 4) Human readable string representing the drive model

I assume when (if?) this gets pushed to F19, I'll have to uninstall this version to be able to install the Fedora 19 update?

Comment 3 Ville Skyttä 2014-01-18 20:21:04 UTC
Thanks for the db description comments, adopted a slightly modified version in 0.3-0.30.beta15. The upcoming F-19 update will be 0.30.beta15.fc19 so it'll upgrade your 0.29.beta15.fc21, no need for uninstall or downgrade first.

Comment 4 Fedora Update System 2014-01-18 20:32:26 UTC
hddtemp-0.3-0.30.beta15.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/hddtemp-0.3-0.30.beta15.fc19

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2014-01-18 20:34:19 UTC
hddtemp-0.3-0.30.beta15.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/hddtemp-0.3-0.30.beta15.fc20

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2014-01-20 03:02:33 UTC
Package hddtemp-0.3-0.30.beta15.fc19:
* should fix your issue,
* was pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository,
* should be available at your local mirror within two days.
Update it with:
# su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing hddtemp-0.3-0.30.beta15.fc19'
as soon as you are able to.
Please go to the following url:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-1152/hddtemp-0.3-0.30.beta15.fc19
then log in and leave karma (feedback).

Comment 7 Edward Kuns 2014-01-20 14:25:30 UTC
Tested hddtemp-0.3-0.30.beta15.fc19 from updates-testing repo and it works perfectly.

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2014-01-28 04:38:00 UTC
hddtemp-0.3-0.30.beta15.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2014-01-28 04:39:22 UTC
hddtemp-0.3-0.30.beta15.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.