Hello,
Just wanted to know if there is a list of recommended Sata3-to-USB3 docks and adapters for HDDs that are proven to work well with HDDSentinel
I have looked for information and sadly most manufacturers wont even mention if it dock/adapter supports SMART which is the bare minimum.
Just for the record this is for docks and adapters, not portable USB HDDs and enclosures
Thanks
Recommended USB3 docks and adapters
-
hdsentinel
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3128
- Joined: 2008.07.27. 17:00
- Location: Hungary
- Contact:
Re: Recommended USB3 docks and adapters
Generally the Support -> Compatiblity -> Compatible external hard disks, enclosures page
( http://www.hdsentinel.com/compatibility ... _disks.php )
designed exactly for this purpose: to show good, correctly working devices which work with Hard Disk Sentinel.
While originally designed for external HDDs / enclosures, this page modified that it contains many docking stations / adapters too.
Personally I always ask users to use Report menu -> Send test report to developer option and write the actual model of the enclosures / adapters / docking stations they use.
If (according the report) the status can be detected correctly - then I can add the device to the list to help other users.
If the status can't be detected (or there may be some minor incompatibility) - then the developer report helps to check the actual situation, verify the possibilities - plus I can acquire a such device to investigate and fix in all possible ways (this happened recently for example for Sharkoon DriveLink Combo).
I recommend to check the chipset - as this determines if the disk status information can be detected or not.
For example, usually there should be no problems with ASMedia chipsets. Some very early chips had troubles, but this already fixed for years.
With JMicron, most of them should work - but (personally I do not really understand why) some newer models no longer allows accessing self-monitoring data. If the status is missing, it is recommend first to check with the latest beta: http://www.hdsentinel.com/beta4/hdsenti ... -sdeeq.zip which has some fixes for JMicron chips - but some newer ones provides absolutely no way to access the status information. I have no idea why (JMicron could not tell that) as this worked for very long time (even since their USB 2.0 adapters and even with multi-drive RAID enclosures too).
Personally I recommend to avoid devices with VLI (Via Labs Inc) chipsets: the drive status can't or can only be partially detected with them.
( http://www.hdsentinel.com/compatibility ... _disks.php )
designed exactly for this purpose: to show good, correctly working devices which work with Hard Disk Sentinel.
While originally designed for external HDDs / enclosures, this page modified that it contains many docking stations / adapters too.
Personally I always ask users to use Report menu -> Send test report to developer option and write the actual model of the enclosures / adapters / docking stations they use.
If (according the report) the status can be detected correctly - then I can add the device to the list to help other users.
If the status can't be detected (or there may be some minor incompatibility) - then the developer report helps to check the actual situation, verify the possibilities - plus I can acquire a such device to investigate and fix in all possible ways (this happened recently for example for Sharkoon DriveLink Combo).
I recommend to check the chipset - as this determines if the disk status information can be detected or not.
For example, usually there should be no problems with ASMedia chipsets. Some very early chips had troubles, but this already fixed for years.
With JMicron, most of them should work - but (personally I do not really understand why) some newer models no longer allows accessing self-monitoring data. If the status is missing, it is recommend first to check with the latest beta: http://www.hdsentinel.com/beta4/hdsenti ... -sdeeq.zip which has some fixes for JMicron chips - but some newer ones provides absolutely no way to access the status information. I have no idea why (JMicron could not tell that) as this worked for very long time (even since their USB 2.0 adapters and even with multi-drive RAID enclosures too).
Personally I recommend to avoid devices with VLI (Via Labs Inc) chipsets: the drive status can't or can only be partially detected with them.
Re: Recommended USB3 docks and adapters
I don't know if this would be useful for you, but I have some more info on SATA/eSATA/USB adapters.
The Addonics ADU3ESA USB3-to-eSATA adapter does a very good job of passing drive data, but mine only seems to connect at USB2. It's had a rough life, that could be why.
I have a SIIG USB3-eSATA adapter that doesn't pass health/temp data, but it's fast and I have no problem running a surface test.
I have a UGreen 20231 USB3-SATA adapter that displays health/temp data just fine, and is nice and fast, but HD Sentinel refuses to consider drives attached with it for surface analysis. No idea why.
So far as I can tell, there is zero functional difference between SATA and eSATA, it's just a matter of making the connection. An internal SATA to external eSATA connector seems to work just fine.
The Addonics ADU3ESA USB3-to-eSATA adapter does a very good job of passing drive data, but mine only seems to connect at USB2. It's had a rough life, that could be why.
I have a SIIG USB3-eSATA adapter that doesn't pass health/temp data, but it's fast and I have no problem running a surface test.
I have a UGreen 20231 USB3-SATA adapter that displays health/temp data just fine, and is nice and fast, but HD Sentinel refuses to consider drives attached with it for surface analysis. No idea why.
So far as I can tell, there is zero functional difference between SATA and eSATA, it's just a matter of making the connection. An internal SATA to external eSATA connector seems to work just fine.
-
hdsentinel
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3128
- Joined: 2008.07.27. 17:00
- Location: Hungary
- Contact:
Re: Recommended USB3 docks and adapters
Thanks for the information!
If you have some time, can you please use Report menu -> Send test report to developer option about the USB adapters?
Then it is possible to check the "raw" details detected, verify/check if there is anything to further change, optimize specifically for them and I'd be happy to add them to the list of supported devices.
The UGreen sounds really interesting, as generally (of course) there should be no problem with surface test: if the drive has any usable capacity, then it should be available for surface test too (even if the device may not allow to access any status information). So I'd more examine/investigate it from the mentioned developer report.
Yes, geneally what you wrote about eSATA / SATA is true: generally there should be no difference as there is no protocol change (no need to "translate" USB commands to SATA commands). However, it is possible that some older combo (USB + eSATA) enclosures may cause troubles and the status detection is not possible via eSATA connection, just on USB connection (even if we'd expect the opposite).
If you have some time, can you please use Report menu -> Send test report to developer option about the USB adapters?
Then it is possible to check the "raw" details detected, verify/check if there is anything to further change, optimize specifically for them and I'd be happy to add them to the list of supported devices.
The UGreen sounds really interesting, as generally (of course) there should be no problem with surface test: if the drive has any usable capacity, then it should be available for surface test too (even if the device may not allow to access any status information). So I'd more examine/investigate it from the mentioned developer report.
Yes, geneally what you wrote about eSATA / SATA is true: generally there should be no difference as there is no protocol change (no need to "translate" USB commands to SATA commands). However, it is possible that some older combo (USB + eSATA) enclosures may cause troubles and the status detection is not possible via eSATA connection, just on USB connection (even if we'd expect the opposite).