Not a bug report, but a question

[PiersJH]

I will create a bug report using the instructions in the pinned post, if required, but I have a general question. I noticed this on my home server (via rdp). The drive is old, but no errors have been reported via Stablebit (full scan that took three weeks) or elsewhere. I don't believe the drive has total host writes of 3,693,958,282 GB (3.69 exabytes). It's been present since HWiNFO version .... 5 or 6. Would you suggest I just ignore this figure?

As you can see, it's not a powerful server and is my NAS. I just don't understand the reporting of over 3 exabytes in writes

 

[Martin]

I don't think those numbers are correct, but hard to say exactly without seeing further details like the DBG file.
What numbers does CrystalDiskInfo show?

 

[PiersJH]

I don't think those numbers are correct, but hard to say exactly without seeing further details like the DBG file.
What numbers does CrystalDiskInfo show?

It's one of the oldest disks I have (I stopped buying Seagate about 7 years ago). Here's the HEX and DEC values (assume HEX is far more useful). I should add, it's not a major issue - I just found it amusing. On the same motherboard, DIMM1 shows as 2* the actual value - I adjusted that in 'customise values'. The HDDs and SSDs are usually accurate.

 

[Martin]

Well, the problem with those disk values is that each vendor uses a different encoding as SMART wasn't fully standardized.
Which DIMM1 value do you mean?

 

[PiersJH]

Well, the problem with those disk values is that each vendor uses a different encoding as SMART wasn't fully standardized.

Good point. I'll just see it as an oddity.

Which DIMM1 value do you mean?

It's DIMM[3] on HWiNFO. I was thinking IMPI naming. I emailed you a couple of years ago and provided information, but you did say that since it's a Supermicro board, and therefore not that popular, there's less chance of it being resolved in HWiNFO. I understand that. I leave HWiNFO running in the background, but use Stablebit Scanner and IPMI reporting for sensor abnormalities. I assume you would agree the latter is more accurate than HWiNFO in general due to niche use?