Need help with "reallocated sector count"?

[Arno Wagner]

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?

The 98 sectors have been moved out of the way. Not risk from them.

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)

You have bad sector number x. This inceases on more bad sectors
found. By some obscure procedure that gives value y. This decreses
with more bad secors found. A first hypothesist is that y decreses
by 2 for every 98 bad sectors. The asumption is that the
initial value was 100. Then you have threshold value z.
If y ever reaches or falls below z, then you get a bad SMART status
for the disk.

The current speculation is that in your particular case x and y
have the same numerical value, purely by accident.

3- The other SMART values are fine as stated by many programs. Right?

Looked that way.

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.

The reallocation count will increase on any successful
realocation.

Reallocation can happen later. If it was unsuccesful so far, you
get a "pending sector". As son as it has been reallocated,
the pending secor attribut is decreased again.

If the sector is completely unreadable or unreallocatable, you see it
as "bad" marked in surface scan tools like Seatools. Did i understand
correct?
Yes.

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.

The reallocated sectros are recognized _and_ corrected problems.
These sectors will not cause problems in the future. Other
sectors may go bad, but if a complete surface scan does not
show any, all data is in sectors that are fine or at least look
like it. In rare cases a sector can work with some data, but be
defect with other data. Very rare with today's disks, due to
heavy use of error correcting codes.

You still may want to do a complete surface scan regularly,
so that the disk can recognize sectors slowly going bad
in time and can rescue the data in them. I run such a test
every 14 days automatically, but once every 1-2 months should
do fine. You can make that a part of your standard backup
procedure.

Those 5 questions are the ones i see answered them clearly.

Again, thank you for following and helping. Very helpful...

You are welcome.

Arno

 

[kimiraikkonen]

The 98 sectors have been moved out of the way. Not risk from them.

So, they were containing data before they've got reallocated. Right?

You have bad sector number x. This inceases on more bad sectors
found. By some obscure procedure that gives value y. This decreses
with more bad secors found. A first hypothesist is that y decreses
by 2 for every 98 bad sectors. The asumption is that the
initial value was 100. Then you have threshold value z.
If y ever reaches or falls below z, then you get a bad SMART status
for the disk.

Very frustrating but good sample if it's straight forward true.
Manufacturer have to explain their raw value and Smart calculations
than guessing.

The current speculation is that in your particular case x and y
have the same numerical value, purely by accident.


Looked that way.


The reallocation count will increase on any successful
realocation.

How much sector will my drive be allowed to reallocate? (eg: What
about for a modern 40gb drive ? )

Reallocation can happen later. If it was unsuccesful so far, you
get a "pending sector". As son as it has been reallocated,
the pending secor attribut is decreased again.


Yes.

That's why the full / surface scan utilities are there. They report
"bad" , really "bad" sectors which can't be allocated by firmware of
HDD. Right?

The reallocated sectros are recognized _and_ corrected problems.
These sectors will not cause problems in the future. Other
sectors may go bad, but if a complete surface scan does not
show any, all data is in sectors that are fine or at least look
like it. In rare cases a sector can work with some data, but be
defect with other data. Very rare with today's disks, due to
heavy use of error correcting codes.

You still may want to do a complete surface scan regularly,
so that the disk can recognize sectors slowly going bad
in time and can rescue the data in them. I run such a test
every 14 days automatically, but once every 1-2 months should
do fine. You can make that a part of your standard backup
procedure.

I usually do it if i record important data. But still "none" bad
sectors have been reported by surface scan of Seatools.

So, can i say i don't have any bad sectors present at the moment?

You are welcome.

Arno

Thanks.

 

[Rod Speed]

So, they were containing data before they've got reallocated. Right?

Yes, but were reallocated when an attempt was made to
write to them, or when they were marginal and could be
read so the data could be moved to the replacement sector.

Thats rather comprehensively mangled and you cant
be sure exactly what that drive does with those values.

Very frustrating but good sample if it's straight forward true.
Manufacturer have to explain their raw value and Smart calculations

And they almost never do explain the smart calculations.

than guessing.

They never guess. Presumably you mean the end users shouldnt have to guess.

How much sector will my drive be allowed to reallocate?

Thats never an absolute and most manufacturers dont say how many spares there are.

(eg: What about for a modern 40gb drive ? )

Typically thousands.

That's why the full / surface scan utilities are there.

Nope, they're there before they were there before SMART ever showed up.

They report "bad" , really "bad" sectors which
can't be allocated by firmware of HDD. Right?

Nope, they are mostly reporting bads that the drive currently chooses
not to reallocate, because the user needs to be allowed to get the
data out of those sectors if they havent been backed up properly.

The only time you see bads continue to be reported by those
utes after every sector on the drive has been WRITTEN to,
is when there arent any more spare sectors available.

And he means the SMART complete surface scan, not the OS level one.

I usually do it if i record important data.

It makes a lot more sense to backup properly instead, because
the data can go missing for other reasons like theft, fire etc.

But still "none" bad sectors have been reported by surface scan of Seatools.

So, can i say i don't have any bad sectors present at the moment?

Correct, they have all been successfully reallocated and you can see
that from the SMART report, no pending or unreallocatable sectors.

 

[Franc Zabkar]

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

I retired my drive after it started growing bad sectors on a daily
basis. The last bad sector couldn't be reallocated and showed up as an
unreadable software file. Sure the drive could have been "fixed" by
replacing the file and allowing SMART to reallocate the affected
sector, but I didn't want to have to do this on a regular basis. So I
can understand why some people replace a drive at the first hint of
trouble.

Twenty years ago I was servicing the old Control Data storage module
drives with removable disc packs. If you started to see read errors,
you could clean the disc heads with alcohol to remove any oxide
buildup on the head pads. This contamination was the result of minor
head-to-disc contact and affected the aerodynamics of the head. Once
you started to see this problem, then you could very quickly end up
with a head crash.

- Franc Zabkar

 

[Rod Speed]

I retired my drive after it started growing bad sectors on a daily
basis. The last bad sector couldn't be reallocated and showed up as an
unreadable software file. Sure the drive could have been "fixed" by
replacing the file and allowing SMART to reallocate the affected
sector, but I didn't want to have to do this on a regular basis. So I
can understand why some people replace a drive at the first hint of
trouble.

Twenty years ago I was servicing the old Control Data storage module
drives with removable disc packs. If you started to see read errors,
you could clean the disc heads with alcohol to remove any oxide
buildup on the head pads. This contamination was the result of minor
head-to-disc contact and affected the aerodynamics of the head. Once
you started to see this problem, then you could very quickly end up
with a head crash.

And modern hard drives dont have the particular problem.

 

[Franc Zabkar]

So, they were containing data before they've got reallocated. Right?

Probably, although you could have encountered some bad sectors from an
unused portion of the disc by running Scandisk with a thorough surface
scan.

How much sector will my drive be allowed to reallocate? (eg: What
about for a modern 40gb drive ? )

I posted some stats for my 13GB Seagate HD. If my assumptions are
correct, then each percentage point reflects a loss of approximately
40 sectors. In my case that means that my drive can reallocate 2560
sectors before it drops below the threshold, after which it should
return a bad SMART status.

If I were you I would backup and retire your drive. Once it starts to
develop bad sectors, then the numbers can only grow. You need to ask
yourself how important your data are.

That's why the full / surface scan utilities are there. They report
"bad" , really "bad" sectors which can't be allocated by firmware of
HDD. Right?

AFAIK, all bad sectors can be reallocated, if enough spares are
available. The problem in this particular case is that the drive will
not reallocate an uncorrectable bad sector until it is sure that the
OS no longer wants the data contained within it. The way that the OS
signals that the data in this sector are no longer of any consequence
is by writing to it. As soon as the drive is asked to write to this
bad sector, it reallocates a spare and writes the new data to it
instead.

In my case I have had a "pending" sector for almost the entire life of
the drive. This is because I ran Scandisk with a thorough surface scan
after FDISKing and formatting my drive. Scandisk found one bad sector
and marked is as such in the FAT. Hence the OS has avoided writing to
it ever since and the "pending" status has remained.

- Franc Zabkar

 

[Arno Wagner]

So, they were containing data before they've got reallocated. Right?

Very frustrating but good sample if it's straight forward true.
Manufacturer have to explain their raw value and Smart calculations
than guessing.

How much sector will my drive be allowed to reallocate? (eg: What
about for a modern 40gb drive ? )

Depends. It this is really 98 down from 100 and caused by
98 reallocation, then a linear extrapolation yields about
3000 reallocated sectors, before the SMART status goes bad.
I expect that at value zero, it will be out of spare sectors,
but that is pure speculation. With that it could reallocate
about 4000 sectors.

That's why the full / surface scan utilities are there. They report
"bad" , really "bad" sectors which can't be allocated by firmware of
HDD. Right?

They report bad sectors that were not reallocated yet.
The disk can allways reallocate sectors, but sometimes only
with dataloss or after several tries.

I usually do it if i record important data. But still "none" bad
sectors have been reported by surface scan of Seatools.

So, can i say i don't have any bad sectors present at the moment?

No. But if you have bad sectors, they cannot be detected by a
read only test. And the probability of such sectors is pretty
small.

Arno

 

[kimiraikkonen]

Depends. It this is really 98 down from 100 and caused by
98 reallocation, then a linear extrapolation yields about
3000 reallocated sectors, before the SMART status goes bad.
I expect that at value zero, it will be out of spare sectors,
but that is pure speculation. With that it could reallocate
about 4000 sectors.

If a sector is about 512bytes, we can can't we calculate how many they
are?

They report bad sectors that were not reallocated yet.
The disk can allways reallocate sectors, but sometimes only
with dataloss or after several tries.

So, what's the difference between reallocation bad sectors and zero-
fill (low-level sector replacement)?

At past, i remember 2 bad sectors were zero-filled(replaced) with full
scan tool Seatools. Also i remember, 32-40kb bad blocks were markend
as bad in Scandisk (chkdsh) automatically. But after formatting and
low-leveling disk, "none" bad sectors are shown during a Dos based
tool Seatool surface scan and chkdsk.

No. But if you have bad sectors, they cannot be detected by a
read only test. And the probability of such sectors is pretty
small.

Rod said different? Everybody says different things :-( Isn't there
the truth?

Again, rewinding the topic (seems that topic will break group
record ), what do you mean by saying read-only test?

Why can't i see if there bad sectors? What is full surface scan tool
used for then???

Arno

Thanks.

 

[Rod Speed]

If a sector is about 512bytes,

The size of the sector isnt relevant to that number.

we can can't we calculate how many they are?

Because you dont know the algorithm used to produce that particular number.

And in that case the problem with the english is you didnt
proofread your post, the first 'we' should presumably be why.

So, what's the difference between reallocation bad sectors
and zero-fill (low-level sector replacement)?

Not much. Zero fill is used as a write to the sector which may well
see the drive decide that it can reallocate the sector because the
user clearly doesnt care about the sector contents anymore.

And zero fill has nothing to do with low level except that a low
level format will normally just be a zero fill with modern hard
drives that cant actually do a low level format anymore.

At past,

In the past,

i remember 2 bad sectors were zero-filled(replaced) with full scan tool Seatools.

And that allows the drive to see that you dont care about the data in those sectors.

Also i remember, 32-40kb bad blocks were markend as bad
in Scandisk (chkdsh) automatically. But after formatting and
low-leveling disk, "none" bad sectors are shown during a
Dos based tool Seatool surface scan and chkdsk.

Because the low level formatting would just be zero filling with
modern drives and the drive will reallocate those sectors once
it realises that you dont want the data in those sectors.

Rod said different?

No I didnt. He's rather clumsily saying that some sectors can look fine
on a read, but not on a write with particular data used for the write.

Its not that common for the data to make a difference to the sector
being bad and I didnt comment on that situation previously in this thread.

Everybody says different things :-(

Thats usenet for ya |-(

Isn't there the truth?

Fraid not.

Again, rewinding the topic (seems that topic will break group record ),

Not a chance.

what do you mean by saying read-only test?

A test that only reads sectors, doesnt write to the drive.

Why can't i see if there bad sectors?

You can with the SMART report.

What is full surface scan tool used for then???

Its what was used before SMART showed up.

 

[Arno Wagner]

If a sector is about 512bytes, we can can't we calculate how many they
are?

Huh? A sector is either completely bad or readable. No relation
to sector size.

So, what's the difference between reallocation bad sectors and zero-
fill (low-level sector replacement)?

Zero-fill may allow the disk to reallocate a sector it did not
manage to reallocate before.

At past, i remember 2 bad sectors were zero-filled(replaced) with full
scan tool Seatools. Also i remember, 32-40kb bad blocks were markend
as bad in Scandisk (chkdsh) automatically. But after formatting and
low-leveling disk, "none" bad sectors are shown during a Dos based
tool Seatool surface scan and chkdsk.

The from the read-tests, disk did know which sectors were bad. In the
process, they likely were all written to and hence the disk could
reallocate then, i.e. move good sectors into their place (logically,
not physically).

Rod said different? Everybody says different things :-( Isn't there
the truth?

For that you have to look to religion. However for modern disks
the typical situation is that a bad sector will be recognized in
a read-only test. It used to be different, were you would, e.g.
have a spot on the disk that could only ttake a zero. If the data
in that places then has a zero there, it read fine. If there
was supposed to be a one, it could be recognized as defect.

Again, rewinding the topic (seems that topic will break group
record ), what do you mean by saying read-only test?

Read it, and see whether that works. A read-write test would
write different patterns to a secor ans reqd them back.

Why can't i see if there bad sectors? What is full surface scan tool
used for then???

As I said, there likely are no bad sectors left that have not
been reallocated.

Arno

 

[Arno Wagner]

Previously kimiraikkonen <[email protected]> wrote:

[...]

Rod said different? Everybody says different things :-( Isn't there
the truth?

BTW, I (and I suspect many others here) usually do not read what
Rod writes. Although from quotes I have seen in postings by others,
he at least sometimes gives good advice now.

Arno

 

[kimiraikkonen]

Most of the computer users, including professionals, don't look at or
take care SMART's "reallocated sectors count" value, they usually take
care full / surface scans against data loss unless SMART reaches to a
critical level with alerting.

I have e-mailed Seagate to ask about the topic title, they haven't
replied with a satisfactory answer so far. Maybe they know or not. Who
knows?

Even sometimes, i hear contact noise, i detailed it them, they said:
if the drive passes long test, i shouldn't worry. As i'm not an
amateur, i usually watch SMART values to see what goes on.

My other SMART values are those (latest):

Are they any value that should make me concerned? (no pending or
uncorrectable sectors)

Attribute Name Threshold Value
Worst Raw value
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 (01) Raw Read Error Rate 34 63
53 2778681
3 (03) Spin Up Time 0
70 70 0
4 (04) Start/Stop Count 20
100 100 692
5 (05) Reallocated Sectors Count 36 98
98 98
7 (07) Seek Error Rate 30
81 60 158998323
9 (09) Power-On Hours 0
93 93 6591
10 (0A) Spin Retry Count 97 100
100 0
12 (0C) Device Power Cycle Count 20 98
98 2602
194 (C2) Temperature 0
21 51 21
195 (C3) Hardware ECC recovered 0 61
53 2778681
197 (C5) Current Pending Sector Count 0 100
100 0
198 (C6) Uncorrectable Sector Count 0 100
100 0
199 (C7) UltraDMA CRC Error Count 0 200
200 0
200 (C8) Write Error Rate (Multi Zone Error Rate) 0 100
253 0
202 (CA) Data Address Mark Errors 0 100
253 0

Sorry, if the lines slide out of the page, i use Google to access
newsgroups, don't know how you get here :-(

Thanks.

 

[Rod Speed]

Most of the computer users, including professionals, don't
look at or take care SMART's "reallocated sectors count"
value, they usually take care full / surface scans against data
loss unless SMART reaches to a critical level with alerting.

Anyone who does it like that aint a 'professional'.

The MUCH more viable approach is to monitor the raw
SMART data over time and consider what changes mean.

I have e-mailed Seagate to ask about the topic title, they haven't replied
with a satisfactory answer so far. Maybe they know or not. Who knows?

Its more likely that they just gave up on your rather fractured english.

Even sometimes, i hear contact noise, i detailed it them, they said:

And this is a good example of rather fractured english
where it isnt at all clear what you are trying to say.

if the drive passes long test, i shouldn't worry.

Thats rather superficial advice, because it wont pick up increasing numbers
of reallocated sectors which is certainly an indication that the drive is dying.

As i'm not an amateur, i usually watch SMART values to see what goes on.

My other SMART values are those (latest):

Are they any value that should make me concerned? (no pending or uncorrectable sectors)

No, the other values are fine given that its a seagate drive. Seagate drives
do have those rather high seek error rate and hardware ECC recovered numbers.

Attribute Name Threshold Value
Worst Raw value
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 (01) Raw Read Error Rate 34 63
53 2778681
3 (03) Spin Up Time 0
70 70 0
4 (04) Start/Stop Count 20
100 100 692
5 (05) Reallocated Sectors Count 36 98
98 98
7 (07) Seek Error Rate 30
81 60 158998323
9 (09) Power-On Hours 0
93 93 6591
10 (0A) Spin Retry Count 97 100
100 0
12 (0C) Device Power Cycle Count 20 98
98 2602
194 (C2) Temperature 0
21 51 21
195 (C3) Hardware ECC recovered 0 61
53 2778681
197 (C5) Current Pending Sector Count 0 100
100 0
198 (C6) Uncorrectable Sector Count 0 100
100 0
199 (C7) UltraDMA CRC Error Count 0 200
200 0
200 (C8) Write Error Rate (Multi Zone Error Rate) 0 100
253 0
202 (CA) Data Address Mark Errors 0 100
253 0

Sorry, if the lines slide out of the page,

The correct terminology is wrap.

i use Google to access newsgroups, don't know how you get here :-(

You can see that from the post headers.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Rod Speed wrote in news:[email protected]

And modern hard drives dont have the particular problem.

Nonsense.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Franc Zabkar wrote in news:[email protected]

Probably, although you could have encountered some bad sectors from an
unused portion of the disc by running Scandisk with a thorough surface
scan.



I posted some stats for my 13GB Seagate HD. If my assumptions are
correct, then each percentage point reflects a loss of approximately
40 sectors. In my case that means that my drive can reallocate 2560
sectors before it drops below the threshold, after which it should
return a bad SMART status.

If I were you I would backup and retire your drive. Once it starts to
develop bad sectors, then the numbers can only grow. You need to ask
yourself how important your data are.


AFAIK, all bad sectors can be reallocated, if enough spares are
available. The problem in this particular case is that the drive will
not reallocate an uncorrectable bad sector until it is sure that the
OS no longer wants the data contained within it. The way that the OS
signals that the data in this sector are no longer of any consequence
is by writing to it. As soon as the drive is asked to write to this
bad sector,

it reallocates a spare and writes the new data to it instead.

Not necessarily, it may reuse the same sector.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Arno Wagner wrote in news:[email protected]

[bigsnip]

That's why the full / surface scan utilities are there. They report
"bad" , really "bad" sectors which can't be allocated by firmware of
HDD. Right?

They report bad sectors that were not reallocated yet.

The disk can allways reallocate sectors,

Not on reads alone.

but sometimes only with dataloss
Nope.

or after several tries.

Always, on reads. Even has to cross a limit for that.

There is always a breaking point somewhere.
Otherwise bad sectors would not exist.

Yes.

But if you have bad sectors, they cannot be detected by a read only test.

Babblebot, utterly clueless as always.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Arno Wagner wrote in news:[email protected]

Previously kimiraikkonen <[email protected]> wrote:

[...]

Rod said different? Everybody says different things :-( Isn't there
the truth?

BTW, I (and I suspect many others here) usually do not read what
Rod writes.

Because you can't handle your own bullshit, Babblebot.
It's selfpreservation on your part. That's why all people
that are knowledgable are in your killfile.

Although from quotes I have seen in postings by others,
he at least sometimes gives good advice now.

Which can't be said of you, babblebot.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

kimiraikkonen wrote in news:d7c5e8e4-3788-453b-ac81-3032b6db9412@b36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com

Most of the computer users, including professionals, don't look at or
take care SMART's "reallocated sectors count" value, they usually take
care full / surface scans against data loss unless SMART reaches to a
critical level with alerting.

I have e-mailed Seagate to ask about the topic title, they haven't
replied with a satisfactory answer so far. Maybe they know or not.
Who knows?

Even sometimes, i hear contact noise, i detailed it them, they said:
if the drive passes long test, i shouldn't worry. As i'm not an
amateur, i usually watch SMART values to see what goes on.

My other SMART values are those (latest):

Are they any value that should make me concerned? (no pending or
uncorrectable sectors)

Attribute Name Threshold Value Worst Raw value
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1 (01) Raw Read Error Rate 34 63 53 2778681
3 (03) Spin Up Time 0 70 70 0
4 (04) Start/Stop Count 20 100 100 692
5 (05) Reallocated Sectors Count 36 98 98 98
7 (07) Seek Error Rate 30 81 60 158998323
9 (09) Power-On Hours 0 93 93 6591
10 (0A) Spin Retry Count 97 100 100 0
12 (0C) Device Power Cycle Count 20 98 98 2602
194 (C2) Temperature 0 21 51 21
195 (C3) Hardware ECC recovered 0 61 53 2778681
197 (C5) Current Pending Sector Count 0 100 100 0
198 (C6) Uncorrectable Sector Count 0 100 100 0
199 (C7) UltraDMA CRC Error Count 0 200 200 0
200 (C8) Write Error Rate (Multi .. Rate) 0 100 253 0
202 (CA) Data Address Mark Errors 0 100 253 0

Sorry, if the lines slide out of the page,

No you're not.
If you were you had edited it so that lines stay within limits.

 

[Franc Zabkar]

Previously kimiraikkonen <[email protected]> wrote:

[...]

Rod said different? Everybody says different things :-( Isn't there
the truth?

BTW, I (and I suspect many others here) usually do not read what
Rod writes. Although from quotes I have seen in postings by others,
he at least sometimes gives good advice now.

Arno

I've had him in my kill file for years now. His typical responses are
one-liners such as "yep" and "nope" and are therefore essentially
worthless. I'd suggest that the OP follow up those posts that include
references and be wary of those that do not include any form of
explanation.

- Franc Zabkar

 

[kimiraikkonen]

Anyone who does it like that aint a 'professional'.

Really? Where are you working or what are you working for?
"Professional"

The MUCH more viable approach is to monitor the raw
SMART data over time and consider what changes mean.

Sure, but how many vendors take care SMART status inside warranty?
That's another important point.

Its more likely that they just gave up on your rather fractured english.

It's not on your hands to judge my English. Don't conclude unless
you're sure, if you feel that you're sure, query yourself more than
once. If you're not tended to be helpful, do not post please.

This group is not English-teaching group.

My native language is not English. If it's yours, then try to learn
different language and judje yourself how good you are. I

And this is a good example of rather fractured english
where it isnt at all clear what you are trying to say.

If you hadn't understood what i've told you, search google "head
contact" or "head crash" then see what it means.

Thats rather superficial advice, because it wont pick up increasing numbers
of reallocated sectors which is certainly an indication that the drive is dying.


No, the other values are fine given that its a seagate drive. Seagate drives
do have those rather high seek error rate and hardware ECC recovered numbers.

That's good news, thanks at least for hardware ECC and others.

The correct terminology is wrap.


You can see that from the post headers.

Implict answer of you. Bad English for me ? :-( I don't think so.

OK, close (do not append) the topic. It's enough i think. Still to
many confusions. There are some good definitions on Wikipedia about
"reallocated sectors."

Thanks.