Windows 10: Since v1803 - Problem Ejecting USB Attached SCSI (UAS) MSD

Please pardon any first post missteps - I have been a follower of these forums since Win7, and I find myself needing the great information contained herein even more now that I made the leap of faith to Win10 last December.

Since I got my current Dell XPS8920 system using Windows 10 last December, I have been using Seagate Expansion+ USB External drives to back up data files and system images. Routinely I would connect the USB cable to the drive, backup the files by copying, or by using SyncBack, then when finished, selecting the Safe Removal icon from the taskbar, and selecting the "Eject Expansion+" option, and the "Safe to Remove..." popup would display with no problem.

Some time since the upgrade to v1803, all of my Expansion+ drives return a "Problem Ejecting USB Attached SCSI (UAS) Mass Storage Device" error popup, stating that the drive is in use, whenever Safe Remove is attempted. USB thumb drives work OK with Safe Remove, however.

I have verified that no programs are accessing the drives, that 'Optimize for Quick Removal' has disabled Write Caching, that 'Allow Indexing Service...' is disabled for each volume on the drive, and that all updates to Windows 10, device drivers, Intel Drivers, and Dell-provided updates have been made right up to the present. Has anyone else had this problem come up only after the v1803 upgrade? Was the USB Attached SCSI (UAS) Protocol driver added to Windows 10 in or after v1803?

I have also used USBTreeView to look at the drive information when connected, and got the following (in part):
-----
+++++++++++++++++ Device Information ++++++++++++++++++
Device Description : USB Attached SCSI (UAS) Mass Storage Device
Device Path : \\?\usb#vid_0bc2&pid_2323#msft30na8a2pw4#{a5dcbf10-6530-11d2-901f-00c04fb951ed}
Device ID : USB\VID_0BC2&PID_2323\MSFT30NA8A2PW4
Hardware IDs : USB\VID_0BC2&PID_2323&REV_0100 USB\VID_0BC2&PID_2323
Driver KeyName : {4d36e97b-e325-11ce-bfc1-08002be10318}\0004 (GUID_DEVCLASS_SCSIADAPTER)
Driver : \SystemRoot\System32\drivers\uaspstor.sys (Version: 10.0.17134.1 Date: 2018-04-11)
Driver Inf : C:\Windows\inf\uaspstor.inf
Legacy BusType : PNPBus
Class : SCSIAdapter
Class GUID : {4d36e97b-e325-11ce-bfc1-08002be10318} (GUID_DEVCLASS_SCSIADAPTER)
Interface GUID : {a5dcbf10-6530-11d2-901f-00c04fb951ed} (GUID_DEVINTERFACE_USB_DEVICE)
Service : UASPStor
Enumerator : USB
Location Info : Port_#0001.Hub_#0002
Location IDs : PCIROOT(0)#PCI(1C00)#PCI(0000)#USBROOT(0)#USB(1), ACPI(_SB_)#ACPI(PCI0)#ACPI(RP02)#ACPI(PXSX)#ACPI(ASM1)#ACPI(HS01)
Container ID : {b7645173-d91b-50a8-8e4a-1469f70cae1d}
Manufacturer Info : USB Attached SCSI (UAS) Compatible Device
Capabilities : 0x14 (Removable, UniqueID)
Status : 0x0180600A (DN_DRIVER_LOADED, DN_STARTED, DN_DISABLEABLE, DN_REMOVABLE, DN_NT_ENUMERATOR, DN_NT_DRIVER)
Problem Code : 0
Power State : D0 (supported: D0, D3, wake from D0)
Child Device 1 : Disk drive (Disk3)
DevicePath : \\?\scsi#disk&ven_seagate&prod_expansion+#000000#{53f56307-b6bf-11d0-94f2-00a0c91efb8b}
Device ID : SCSI\DISK&VEN_SEAGATE&PROD_EXPANSION+\000000
Class : DiskDrive
-----

When I try to use USBTreeView's 'Safely Remove' option on the drive, I get a Removal Failed popup stating:

Result: CR_REMOVE_VETOED
VetoType: DEVICE
VetoName: STORAGE\Volume\{07049b2f-99cc-11e8-a817-14b31f081fa5}#0000000000100000

Any ideas on what might be the problem? I have even mastered the art of unplugging the drive at the moment of spin-down during a restart, but I would really like to get back to the way these Expansion+ drives worked before v1803... Many thanks for all the help I have already gained from the forums!!!

Mike




:)

 

Error message "USB Attached SCSI (UAS) Mass Storage Device has a driver problem".

Hi,

An outdated driver is one of the possible reasons why you're getting the error message that says "USB Attached SCSI (UAS) Mass Storage Device has a driver problem".

As an initial troubleshooting, you may try to run devices and hardware troubleshooter from this link:
How to use Microsoft easy fix solutions

Update us with the outcome.

 

Can anyone use USB attached SCSI in 10?


Is anyone using a UAS device successfully on 9926? I have a Iomega eGo USB 3 1TB drive which connects through USB Attached SCSI when running 9926 on 2012 Macbook Pro hardware. The drive is fine (works through USB2 on Thinkpad) and the Macbook is fine (the same drive works using UAS under OSX).

When running 9926 I have the following problems (although reading from the disk works fine *Smile)

• Format through disk management and delete through File explorer fails crashing explorer and forcing hard power off.
• Format through diskpart fails with spurious error message.
• Format through mini partition wizard hangs.
• Write by copying through File explorer works (for a bit - I can create an empty folder and managed to copy one episode of a series of a TV show). Then explorer crashes and have to hard power off.
• Drive can not be seen at all through easeus or recuvva (tried when I thought drive might be an issue).

I've reported it through insider program but as most reports are only as detailed as the words "USB 3 doesn't work" I thought I'd have more luck here...

I'd be really interested if anyone can run UAS external USB 3 drives on 10 and if so what drivers you have. Mine are all 10.0.9926.0 fbl_awesome1501.150119-1648. If it does work for you could you let me know what drivers you have (Right click on drive, Properties, Hardware tab, Properties, Driver tab, Driver Details). I have these currently:

Attachment 12959

Attachment 12958

Thanks

(this is a spin-off of my misleadingly titled thread Can't format external USB drive.)

 

Poor write performance of Bitlocker-enabled USB 3.x UAS (USB Attached SCSI) external SSD drives







Hi Community!

This topic is about poor write performance of Bitlocker-enabled external USB 3.x attached SCSI SSD drives (so called UAS drives) that are gaining popularity these days.

I trigger this topic because I found information available on the Internet too contradictory and misleading, and because of growing number of UAS SSDs on the market. The devices are typically equipped with some sort of
SandFprce or Phison controllers, so they operate much like SAS SCSI drives. Peculiarly, since USB 3.x provides double simplex transfers, in theory (if supported in Windows 10, of which I am not sure) the devices should be capable of simultaneously read and
write with little speed downgrade.

When people complain about “something is wrong” with their Bitlocker enabled drive, they lack “system and methodology”, because what is applicable to one drive is not applicable to another or the same drive in different circumstances.
Hereby I give you a method of correctly testing and comparing the performance of the external USB 3.x attached SCSI SSD drives which cannot alter the true results and mislead interpretations. (Like the guy who run the test on a PC with 64 GB DRAM and test
file size of 32 GB therefore actually measured performance of cache and not Bitlocker itself). Once you stick to the procedure described, you will not make such the mistakes.

This procedure applies to Bitlocker encrypted volumes on external SCSI SSD drives connected through USB 3.x serial bus to Windows 10 64 Professional / Professional for Workstations machines, builds 1605 and above;

For this procedure the following conditions are true:

• The CPU of the machine has included set of Intel New AES instructions, providing at least 5 G-ops for encryption/decryption performance in hardware, total for all the cores;

• The sustained DirectIO mode (Windows caching disabled) speed of the SAS attached USB 3.x drive should be above 400 MB/sec for both write and read random patterns, latency below 0.03 ms, when tested blocksizes are above 256K according ATTO and test
  file size should be double of the system physical memory. So we know for sure UAS is enabled and operating.

• The drive should be set as "Removable" in the policy. This is a precaution to prevent the OS to intervene into the IO flow and caching.

Now the Bitlocker performance measure procedure:

• Create a new NTFS volume on the drive with size of quadruple of system memory size (physical). So t.ex. for 8 GB system memory we create a volume 32 GB.

• Ensure that hardware encryption on the drive, if any, is disabled in GPO. For me t.ex, with new Corsair Voyager GTX 512 GB, there is no encrypting processor on the drive, as the controller of the disk is Phison (no compression or encryption).

• Create another volume next to it, of the same size and type of filesystem as the previos. This second volume will be our reference.

• Enable BITLOCKER for the first volume and fully encrypt it with new XTS 128 bit AES (default for new versions of Windows 10) and not the "compatible mode". Do NOT use "Bitlocker On The Go", encrypt the whole volume NOW. Do not enable the Bitlocker
  on the reference volume.

Well, if you correctly reproduced the bench, you will have a Bitlocker volume on your external drive with assigned letter, and another volume with another assigned drive letter, so move on and open ATTO.

• Pick up the second (unencrypted) volume by the assigned letter. Select queque depth of 8, Direct IO mode, IO overlapping as test parametes and full range for the block sizes. Set test file size to be half of the volume size.

• Run the test and save the results.

• Now, do the same for the Bitlocker encrypted drive. Save the results

The outcome.

You will immediately notice how performance drops when BitLocker is enabled. This is especially noticeable for large block sizes.

Pick up t.ex 4 Mb block size random write speed from the results set for unencrypted volume and divide it by the same result for the Bitlocker encrypted volume.

For me the performance degradation is severe: this ratio is as large as 4 on NTFS and up to 7 for ReFS; To underline, this is for the whole encrypted volume.

Discussion.

Till now, nobody told us how much actual data the Bitlocker writes physically to disk when System writes to Bitlocker some given portion of data. What is the aspect ratio of the two? With the hardware AES support on new Intel
CPUs the encryption overhead is minimal, a matter of percents;

But ratios this high for AES writing operations might tell us that Bitlocker writes 4-5 times more to the physical layer that it writes on the System level, hence the performance drop.

Is that normal, is that “by design”?

Can you share you results acquired according this procedure for you drive?

Can you report your model name/ capacity with the result of the test?

It seems that something is not clear with the latest implementation of Bitlocker when it comes to real-world performance with external USB 3.x UAS SSD drives. Do you agree?

What is your opinion on the topic? Would you suggest some additional testing/ GPO settings/ configurations to test this issue more completely and are you aware of the way how to fix it, if you believe it is possible?

Do you agree that sustained write performance for 450+ MB/s capable device at 100+ MB/s with Bitlocker enabled is a shame? For comparison, VeraCrypt provides Three Level Nested Encryption at such the write speed on the same drive
and volume!

Thank you everybody who reads this and share your thoughts and results.

Thank attached are ATTO test for the same volume on the external USB 3.x UAS SSD Bitlocker encrypted vs. Unencrypted (NTFS)

Regards,

Serge