F
Franc Zabkar
OK, I see the reason for my confusion. In your case the actual raw
value of 98 sectors (=62 hex) coincides with the "percentage" value or
"normalized" value of 98. Pure coincidence.
- Franc Zabkar
OK, I see the reason for my confusion. In your case the actual raw
value of 98 sectors (=62 hex) coincides with the "percentage" value or
"normalized" value of 98. Pure coincidence.
- Franc Zabkar
K
kimiraikkonen
Here is Everest report for "reallocated sectors count":
ID Attribute Description Threshold Value Worst Data Status
05 Reallocated Sector Count 36 98 98 98 OK: Value is
normal
Sorry, if something is understood due to my English so teach me what
the correct sentences is, therefore i can explain more fluently.
Today, again i applied Seatools full scan (long test) and passed
successfully. Really weird.
R
Rod Speed
kimiraikkonen said:
Sometimes thats hard because its not clear what you were trying to say/ask.
Nope, its saying that those reallocated bad sectors
have been reallocated, so currenty the drive is fine.
But since there are so many reallocated sectors, it is certainly dying and wont be fine for long.
Post the full SMART report, not just that one line.
K
kimiraikkonen
"Rod", here is full SMART report from Everest, it say everyvalue is
normal.
Meanwhile, this reallocated sectors may remain from past and i don't
want to conclude unless they dramatically continue to populate.
ID Attribute Description Threshold Value Worst Data
Status
01 Raw Read Error Rate 34 64 53 171388353
OK: Value is normal
03 Spin Up Time 0 70 70
0 OK: Always passes
04 Start/Stop Count 20 100 100
692 OK: Value is normal
05 Reallocated Sector Count 36 98 98
98 OK: Value is normal
07 Seek Error Rate 30 81 60
158600840 OK: Value is normal
09 Power-On Time Count 0 93 93
6581 OK: Always passes
0A Spin Retry Count 97 100 100
0 OK: Value is normal
0C Power Cycle Count 20 98 98
2590 OK: Value is normal
C2 Temperature 0 28 51
28 OK: Always passes
C3 Hardware ECC Recovered 0 64 53
171388353 OK: Always passes
C5 Current Pending Sector Count 0 100 100
0 OK: Always passes
C6 Off-Line Uncorrectable Sector Count 0 100 100
0 OK: Always passes
C7 Ultra ATA CRC Error Rate 0 200 200
0 OK: Always passes
C8 Write Error Rate 0 100 253
0 OK: Always passes
CA TA Increase Count 0 100 253
0 OK: Always passes
Thanks.
normal.
Meanwhile, this reallocated sectors may remain from past and i don't
want to conclude unless they dramatically continue to populate.
ID Attribute Description Threshold Value Worst Data
Status
01 Raw Read Error Rate 34 64 53 171388353
OK: Value is normal
03 Spin Up Time 0 70 70
0 OK: Always passes
04 Start/Stop Count 20 100 100
692 OK: Value is normal
05 Reallocated Sector Count 36 98 98
98 OK: Value is normal
07 Seek Error Rate 30 81 60
158600840 OK: Value is normal
09 Power-On Time Count 0 93 93
6581 OK: Always passes
0A Spin Retry Count 97 100 100
0 OK: Value is normal
0C Power Cycle Count 20 98 98
2590 OK: Value is normal
C2 Temperature 0 28 51
28 OK: Always passes
C3 Hardware ECC Recovered 0 64 53
171388353 OK: Always passes
C5 Current Pending Sector Count 0 100 100
0 OK: Always passes
C6 Off-Line Uncorrectable Sector Count 0 100 100
0 OK: Always passes
C7 Ultra ATA CRC Error Rate 0 200 200
0 OK: Always passes
C8 Write Error Rate 0 100 253
0 OK: Always passes
CA TA Increase Count 0 100 253
0 OK: Always passes
Thanks.
A
Arno Wagner
For reallocated sectors, yes! Especially since the raw
value is usually a direct count. (Except for some
notepook HDD I have, which seems to count down from
4096000000....)
The above is from the smartmontools, which have been ported
to Windows as well. Commandline only, but easily the best
functionality. http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net/
Arno
A
Arno Wagner
Increase in bad sectors is a very bad sign.
That would be bad. I had one Maxtor HDD that got about this
high a number in one burst and worked perfectly for another
3 years. But it was in a RAID and I would not trust a disk
with this many bad sectors....
Arno
A
Arno Wagner
That looks very likely to me too now. Quite confusing, I agree.
98 bad sectors is a high number. If it does not increase, the
drive may still be fine (there are those that discard a drive
at the first reallocated secotr, I prefer RAID1 and backups).
Arno
R
Rod Speed
kimiraikkonen said:
No need to quote that, that is my real name.
It looks fine.
It always does unless the drive is very close to imminent
death, ignore that and focus on the Data numbers.
Yes, they certainly are, but you dont get that many
reallocated sectors unless the drive is dying.
Doesnt need to be dramatic, if they keep increasing, the drive is dying.
Thats normal for a seagate. That value does vary with the manufacturer.
It has been a bit high in the past, but not enough to be the cause
of the reallocated sectors. Thats the main reason I wanted the full
report to see if there was any other problem but the one you showed.
Ditto with seagate drives.
Those two say that there arent any bads that havent been reallocated.
Thats the ribbon cable, its fine.
R
Rod Speed
Arno Wagner said:
But not the most readable report around.
F
Franc Zabkar
I've been living with a dying drive for at least two years. This last
week was the last straw, though.
I find that Seagate's threshold value of 36 is somewhat optimistic. If
I have correctly interpreted my logs, then each percentage (?) point
corresponds to a loss of approximately 40 sectors. So a value of 36
represents a loss of 64 points, which in turn corresponds to about
2560 reallocated sectors.
- Franc Zabkar
A
Arno Wagner
Previously Franc Zabkar said:
Gutsy! ;-)
Well possible. I once had a Maxtor (in a cluster of compute servers)
that was incredible slow and has about 1100 reallocated sectors.
This thing was dying pretty fast (had been dropped and it
took some weeks to develop problems). The thing was that the
SMART status still read good, i.e. above the threshold.
At that time I started monitoring the raw reallocated sector
count and installed email notification on changes of that..
Some vendors are extremely optimisticc with regard to SMART
thresholds. Kind of makes the SMART status alone pretty
worthless. No wonder so many people are asking in this group
for help interpreting SMART data.
Arno
K
kimiraikkonen
Arno, Rod (no quatiton mark 
), Franc,
Thanks you for following this topic and keeping replying.
So, as overall when you looked at SMART values, i want to summarize
what i got in that topic?
1- There are 98 reallocated bad sectors but there's no unallocated as
a threat of data loss? Right?
2-ID Attribute Description Threshold Value Worst Data Status
05 Reallocated Sector Count 36 98 98 98 OK: Value is normal
That means there are 98 reallocated sectors, but still couldn't
completely understand for Seagate what "threshold - 36" means? It
shouldn't be percantage, does it mean that i'm allowed to allocate
100-36 = 64 bad ones? (frustrating)
3- The other SMART values are fine as stated by many programs. Right?
4- A "reallocated sector count" shows the amount of reallocated /
replaced sectors silently while the drive is operating. When the drive
has a problem with sector, first it tries to replace that sectors with
a "spare" sector thus a "reallocated sector" statistic is updated.
If the sector is completely unreadable or unreallocatable, you see it
as "bad" marked in surface scan tools like Seatools. Did i understand
correct?
5- Though a drive has "reallocated sectors", if it can read every data
(checking with several disk reading utilites), it doesn't have a
unallocatable / unfixable bad sectos which are the reasons of real
data loss.
Those 5 questions are the ones i see answered them clearly.
Again, thank you for following and helping. Very helpful...
Regards.
), Franc,Thanks you for following this topic and keeping replying.
So, as overall when you looked at SMART values, i want to summarize
what i got in that topic?
1- There are 98 reallocated bad sectors but there's no unallocated as
a threat of data loss? Right?
2-ID Attribute Description Threshold Value Worst Data Status
05 Reallocated Sector Count 36 98 98 98 OK: Value is normal
That means there are 98 reallocated sectors, but still couldn't
completely understand for Seagate what "threshold - 36" means? It
shouldn't be percantage, does it mean that i'm allowed to allocate
100-36 = 64 bad ones? (frustrating)
3- The other SMART values are fine as stated by many programs. Right?
4- A "reallocated sector count" shows the amount of reallocated /
replaced sectors silently while the drive is operating. When the drive
has a problem with sector, first it tries to replace that sectors with
a "spare" sector thus a "reallocated sector" statistic is updated.
If the sector is completely unreadable or unreallocatable, you see it
as "bad" marked in surface scan tools like Seatools. Did i understand
correct?
5- Though a drive has "reallocated sectors", if it can read every data
(checking with several disk reading utilites), it doesn't have a
unallocatable / unfixable bad sectos which are the reasons of real
data loss.
Those 5 questions are the ones i see answered them clearly.
Again, thank you for following and helping. Very helpful...
Regards.
F
Folkert Rienstra
Arno Wagner wrote in news:[email protected]
Right Babblebot, far better to trust a drive that has never exhibited any
signs but will die tomorrow just a split second after you hit the Power button.
Right Babblebot, far better to trust a drive that has never exhibited any
signs but will die tomorrow just a split second after you hit the Power button.
F
Folkert Rienstra
Arno Wagner wrote in news:[email protected]
You are a babblebot with a cooked brain. Nothing is confusing to you.
You are a babblebot with a cooked brain. Nothing is confusing to you.
F
Folkert Rienstra
Franc Zabkar wrote in news:[email protected]
You're Babblebot. You can't do anything about it. It's in your DNA.
Which is still a minute percentage of the number of spare sectors available.
You're Babblebot. You can't do anything about it. It's in your DNA.
Which is still a minute percentage of the number of spare sectors available.
F
Folkert Rienstra
F
Folkert Rienstra
kimiraikkonen wrote in
Yeah, pity none of them recognized your original report for what
it was and none of them ever called a S.M.A.R.T. report correct.
Arno, Rod (no quatiton mark
Thanks you for following this topic and keeping replying.
So, as overall when you looked at SMART values, i want to summarize
what i got in that topic?
1- There are 98 reallocated bad sectors but there's no unallocated as
a threat of data loss? Right?
2-ID Attribute Description Threshold Value Worst Data Status
05 Reallocated Sector Count 36 98 98 98 OK: Value is normal
That means there are 98 reallocated sectors, but still couldn't
completely understand for Seagate what "threshold - 36" means? It
shouldn't be percantage, does it mean that i'm allowed to allocate
100-36 = 64 bad ones? (frustrating)
3- The other SMART values are fine as stated by many programs. Right?
4- A "reallocated sector count" shows the amount of reallocated /
replaced sectors silently while the drive is operating. When the drive
has a problem with sector, first it tries to replace that sectors with
a "spare" sector thus a "reallocated sector" statistic is updated.
If the sector is completely unreadable or unreallocatable, you see it
as "bad" marked in surface scan tools like Seatools. Did i understand
correct?
5- Though a drive has "reallocated sectors", if it can read every data
(checking with several disk reading utilites), it doesn't have a
unallocatable / unfixable bad sectos which are the reasons of real
data loss.
Those 5 questions are the ones i see answered them clearly.
Yeah, pity none of them recognized your original report for what
it was and none of them ever called a S.M.A.R.T. report correct.
R
Rod Speed
kimiraikkonen said:Arno, Rod (no quatiton mark
Just as well, the death squad would have got its orders otherwise |-)
The english is too fractured there for it to be clear what the last half is asking.
Dont worry about it, those thresholds are too conservative to be useful in this situation.
No, it doesnt mean that.
Yes, but its the Data value that matters, not what the SMART utes say.
Yes, tho it may have needed a deliberate write to the sector to get the drive
to reallocate it. The drive wont necessarily reallocate on reads that fail, mainly
so you can try hard to get the data out of the sector before its reallocated.
Yes, but not necessarily on a read that fails, see above.
No, that can also be just a sector that cant be read but which can be
reallocated if you write to it, triggering the drive to do a reallocation.
Its done like that so you can try hard to get data out of the sector before its reallocated.
Its more complicated than that with that many reallocated sectors.
Thats usually evidence that the drive is dying.
Whereas one or two reallocated sectors may be quite
acceptible and not evidence that the drive is dying.
Thats too fractured to understand too.
Thats what these technical newsgroups are for.
K
kimiraikkonen
Then teach me the correct way of explaining, sorry if couldn't put
thoughts into words in my mind.
I meant, bad blocks are seen as "bad" in surface scan why they're
really bad / unreadable. They cannot be allocated or allocation
pool(spare area) has failed / full.
Then, when do a user see bad sectors reported after a full / surface
scan?
Did it but still drive seems OK.
Again language critisism, sorry if there were due to confusion.
Correct.
R
Rod Speed
Not possible unless I can work out what you are trying to say in that last half, and I still cant.
The allocation pool of spare sectors will be empty, not full.
Because that is a read only scan, and the drive wont always reallocate
those if it cant read the contents after multiple retrys, so you can use
something else to get the data back before its reallocated.
Because the diagnostic has rewritten those bad sectors, because you told it to try that.