Need help with "reallocated sector count"?
kimiraikkonen
I want to ask a question about my Seagate drives SMART attribute
"reallocated sector count".
"reallocated sector count" is at the limit. The values are i look with
my Smart utility:
Current: 98, Worst: 98, Threshold: 36, Data: 98
I checked my drive a lot of times with SEATOOLS with "complete FULL
scan" also checked with regular chkdsk /f function. No bad blocks are
found (zero) 0 kb.
So, what does the warning about "reallocated sector count"?
Are they really bad sectors which are hidden or what is it?
If there are bad blocks hidden, why is there popular utilities like
Seatools which can find bad blocks and replace them (zero-fill
replacing)?
Please help.
Regards...
Rod Speed
> I want to ask a question about my Seagate drives SMART attribute
> "reallocated sector count".
> "reallocated sector count" is at the limit. The values are i look with
> my Smart utility:
> Current: 98, Worst: 98, Threshold: 36, Data: 98
> I checked my drive a lot of times with SEATOOLS with "complete FULL
> scan" also checked with regular chkdsk /f function. No bad blocks are
> found (zero) 0 kb.
> So, what does the warning about "reallocated sector count"?
> Are they really bad sectors which are hidden
Yes, they are bad sectors that have been replaced, reallocated.
> or what is it?
> If there are bad blocks hidden, why is there popular utilities like Seatools
> which can find bad blocks and replace them (zero-fill replacing)?
Because its not desirable to replace them regardless, you may
want to try to get the data out of them before replacing them.
If a drive has too many reallocated sectors, its dying.
kimiraikkonen
If so, why can't i see bad sectors reported after running official
Seatools?
It says full surface scan / long test as "Passed".
I'm confused. Also i want to mention; at past there were some logical
bad blocks zero-filled(replaced) using Seatools with success.
Do they remain from past or recent?
Arno Wagner
> Hello,
> I want to ask a question about my Seagate drives SMART attribute
> "reallocated sector count".
> "reallocated sector count" is at the limit. The values are i look with
> my Smart utility:
> Current: 98, Worst: 98, Threshold: 36, Data: 98
That is not at the limit. These attributes count down.
The limit would be 36, it is currently at 98, likely down
from 100.
> I checked my drive a lot of times with SEATOOLS with "complete FULL
> scan" also checked with regular chkdsk /f function. No bad blocks are
> found (zero) 0 kb.
That is why these are "re"-allocated. The bad blocks are not
visible anymore.
> So, what does the warning about "reallocated sector count"?
> Are they really bad sectors which are hidden or what is it?
> If there are bad blocks hidden, why is there popular utilities like
> Seatools which can find bad blocks and replace them (zero-fill
> replacing)?
Because the disk can not allways reallocated bad blocks.
It basically can if a) the block is bad but still readable or b)
it found the bad block in a surface scan and it gets overwritten
befiore it gets read.
> Please help.
Now, there are no raw numbers given by the SMART utility you use. Or
this disk does not give you a raw reallocation count. One thing you
should do is to tru to get a raw realocation count. This may be two
sectors or 200, hard to tell. The other thing is that while your disk
may have a problem, it might also be fine. The key to determining this
is to observe the disk carefully. If it gets more reallocated sectors
over time, replace it. If not, it may be fine. For this you need the
raw value again. Also run a long SMART selftest every week or so for
some time. And keep your backups current.
Other poossibel sources of bad secors: Bad PSU, mechanical shock
or vibration.
Arno
kimiraikkonen
Thanks for replying. It was very helpful and relaxing. I want to tell
its short history:
At past i had 2 bad sectors on that(same) disk which were not
physical(logical) and replaced (zero-filled) via Seatools(officiall
diagnostic utility) easily.
Since then, i frequently scan full surface of my drive i don't see
any
bad sectors reported since 2 bad ones have been repaired by Seatools.
So what is "98" mean at this case?
So, is there anything than i must concern at the moment? Is there any
present bad sectors although i fixed(zero-filled) those 2 ones
before?
Also "reallocated sectors count" is descibed as "lower value is
better" so if threshold is 36,
isn't going to lower value better? Confusing?
Very thanks.
Arno Wagner
It just means 98 out of 100, with no fixed relation. Unless it
ist the "raw" value, then it means 98 defective and reallocated secors.
That would be a lot. In your case it could mean that the vendor has
choosen to decrese it by 1 for each reallocated secor and therefore
allow 64 reallocated secors before a bad SMART status is reached.
> So, is there anything than i must concern at the moment? Is there any
> present bad sectors although i fixed(zero-filled) those 2 ones
> before?
After long SMART selftest/surface scan, there should be no
unrecognized bad secors. BTW, recognized bad secors that
could not (yet) be reallocated are listed unter the
"Pending sectors" (or the like) attribute.
> Also "reallocated sectors count" is descibed as "lower value is
> better" so if threshold is 36,
> isn't going to lower value better? Confusing?
Huh? Where did you find "lower value is better"? All
SMART attributes have a "value decresed on problem" semantics
in the "coocked" form. Of course in the raw form, it can be
different, but the threshold and ordinary attibute display is
cooked. Let me give you an example from one of my disks:
ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE UPDATED WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE
1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 0x000f 100 100 051 Pre-fail Always - 0
3 Spin_Up_Time 0x0007 100 100 025 Pre-fail Always - 6080
4 Start_Stop_Count 0x0032 099 099 000 Old_age Always - 1115
5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct 0x0033 253 253 010 Pre-fail Always - 0
"Value", "Worst" and "Threshold" are cooked values, and lower is
always worse. "Raw_Value" is the register value, and here hogher
is indeed worse for reallocated sector count. Note that this disk
has zero reallocated sectors.
Arno
Rod Speed
> On 11 Kas m, 21:47, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkone...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I want to ask a question about my Seagate drives SMART attribute
>>> "reallocated sector count".
>>> "reallocated sector count" is at the limit. The values are i look
>>> with
>>> my Smart utility:
>>> Current: 98, Worst: 98, Threshold: 36, Data: 98
>>> I checked my drive a lot of times with SEATOOLS with "complete FULL
>>> scan" also checked with regular chkdsk /f function. No bad blocks
>>> are
>>> found (zero) 0 kb.
>>> So, what does the warning about "reallocated sector count"?
>>> Are they really bad sectors which are hidden
>>
>> Yes, they are bad sectors that have been replaced, reallocated.
>>
>>> or what is it?
>>> If there are bad blocks hidden, why is there popular utilities like
>>> Seatools which can find bad blocks and replace them (zero-fill
>>> replacing)?
>>
>> Because its not desirable to replace them regardless, you may
>> want to try to get the data out of them before replacing them.
>>
>> If a drive has too many reallocated sectors, its dying.
> If so, why can't i see bad sectors reported after running official Seatools?
Because you told it to reallocate those, so there arent any more visible anymore.
> It says full surface scan / long test as "Passed".
> I'm confused.
You are indeed.
> Also i want to mention; at past there were some logical bad blocks zero-filled
> (replaced) using Seatools with success. Do they remain from past or recent?
The question makes no sense in english.
kimiraikkonen
> >> > Please help.
I don't think its raw value. How will i know? There are only:
current:98 worst:98 threshold:36 data:98. I don't think there are much
bad blocks (98 is so much) and never had any serious problem that may
point 98 bad-blocks.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> > So, is there anything than i must concern at the moment? Is there any
> > present bad sectors although i fixed(zero-filled) those 2 ones
> > before?
> After long SMART selftest/surface scan, there should be no
> unrecognized bad secors. BTW, recognized bad secors that
> could not (yet) be reallocated are listed unter the
> "Pending sectors" (or the like) attribute.
> > Also "reallocated sectors count" is descibed as "lower value is
> > better" so if threshold is 36,
> > isn't going to lower value better? Confusing?
> Huh? Where did you find "lower value is better"? All
> SMART attributes have a "value decresed on problem" semantics
> in the "coocked" form. Of course in the raw form, it can be
> different, but the threshold and ordinary attibute display is
> cooked. Let me give you an example from one of my disks:
>From here an other sites:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Monitoring%2C_Analysis%2C_and_Repor...
Says "reallocated sectors count" value lower is better.
> ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE UPDATED WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE
> 1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 0x000f 100 100 051 Pre-fail Always - 0
> 3 Spin_Up_Time 0x0007 100 100 025 Pre-fail Always - 6080
> 4 Start_Stop_Count 0x0032 099 099 000 Old_age Always - 1115
> 5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct 0x0033 253 253 010 Pre-fail Always - 0
> "Value", "Worst" and "Threshold" are cooked values, and lower is
> always worse. "Raw_Value" is the register value, and here hogher
> is indeed worse for reallocated sector count. Note that this disk
> has zero reallocated sectors.
So, as summary you advise to consider / care "raw value" ? However i
found a software called "ActiveSMART" and it has a section about "show
raw values", when i look there the raw value for "reallocated sectors
count" is "98".
So what does it mean?
> Arno
Rod Speed, why doesn't that question make no sense in "English"? I
just wondered if current values i get about "reallocated sectors
count" related to 2 bad-blocks which i fixed at the best by replacing
(zero-filling, low-leveling) them?.
Thanks
Franc Zabkar
<kimirai...@gmail.com> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>Hello,
>I want to ask a question about my Seagate drives SMART attribute
>"reallocated sector count".
>
>"reallocated sector count" is at the limit. The values are i look with
>my Smart utility:
>
>Current: 98, Worst: 98, Threshold: 36, Data: 98
You need to monitor the raw value. I use a DOS utility named SmartUDM
for this purpose. For Windows there is Everest Home Edition.
My Seagate 13GB HD has been steadily growing defects. Two years ago
they were at 34, today I have 130. During the past week about 10 bad
sectors were added. I have now backed up and retired the drive.
Based on what my Everest and SmartUDM logs show (see below), and
assuming that the numbers are not scaled up for larger HDs, I suspect
that you may have between ~80 and ~120 reallocated sectors.
ID Attribute Description Threshold Value Worst Data
--------------------------------------------------------------------
05 Reallocated Sector Count 36 100 100 34
Attribute ID Threshold Value Worst Raw Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Reallocated Sector Count 5 36 98 98 000000000079h EC
Reallocated Sectors: 121
Reallocated Sector Count 5 36 97 97 00000000007Fh EC
Reallocated Sectors: 127
- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
kimiraikkonen
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 10:55:15 -0800, kimiraikkonen
OK, i've previously written values..
Here is Everest ones about "reallocated sectors count":
ID Attribute Description Threshold Value Worst
Data Status
05 Reallocated Sector Count 36 98 98
98 OK: Value is normal
I also check with ActiveSMART saying the raw value is: 98
Arno said it counts down, i had 2 bad-sectors at the past which i
fixed using Seatools. Since that, i haven't had any bad-blocks shown
in chkdsk or Seatools full surface scan.
So what does that values mean?
ID Attribute Description Threshold Value Worst
Data Status
05 Reallocated Sector Count 36 98 98
98 OK: Value is normal
SmartUDM from Dos: Raw: 000000000062h
reallocated sectors: 98 (but how
reliable is it?)
It also says status is OK. Which result will i rely on? Manufacturer's
full/surface scan utility or SMART?
There are some users trying to help, but i want a explict explanation.
This topic is a bit messed up, that's why i haven't received an
"exact" and "satisfactory" response.
Please interpret my values, if you are sure. Wrong information makes
annoying as you know :(
Thanks for the care...
Rod Speed
> current:98 worst:98 threshold:36 data:98. I don't think there are much
> bad blocks (98 is so much) and never had any serious problem that may
> point 98 bad-blocks.
>
>>> any present bad sectors although i fixed(zero-filled) those 2 ones
>>> before?
>>
>> After long SMART selftest/surface scan, there should be no
>> unrecognized bad secors. BTW, recognized bad secors that
>> could not (yet) be reallocated are listed unter the
>> "Pending sectors" (or the like) attribute.
>>
>>> Also "reallocated sectors count" is descibed as "lower value is
>>> better" so if threshold is 36,
>>> isn't going to lower value better? Confusing?
>>
>> Huh? Where did you find "lower value is better"? All
>> SMART attributes have a "value decresed on problem" semantics
>> in the "coocked" form. Of course in the raw form, it can be
>> different, but the threshold and ordinary attibute display is
>> cooked. Let me give you an example from one of my disks:
>
>
> Says "reallocated sectors count" value lower is better.
>
>> UPDATED WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE 1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 0x000f
>> 100 100 051 Pre-fail Always - 0 3 Spin_Up_Time
>> 0x0007 100 100 025 Pre-fail Always - 6080 4
>> Start_Stop_Count 0x0032 099 099 000 Old_age
>> Always - 1115 5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct 0x0033 253
>> 253 010 Pre-fail Always - 0
>>
>> "Value", "Worst" and "Threshold" are cooked values, and lower is
>> always worse. "Raw_Value" is the register value, and here hogher
>> is indeed worse for reallocated sector count. Note that this disk
>> has zero reallocated sectors.
> So, as summary you advise to consider / care "raw value" ?
Yep.
> Which programs will show "raw value"?
Everest.
http://www.majorgeeks.com/download.php?det=4181
> Could you give an Windows-based sample?
ID Attribute Description Threshold Value Worst Data Status
05 Reallocated Sector Count 11 100 100 0 OK: Value is normal
> I tried about 3 programs saying only: current, value, threshold and worst...
> Rod Speed, why doesn't that question make no sense in "English"?
Its rather fractured english, not clear what you are asking.
> I just wondered if current values i get about "reallocated
> sectors count" related to 2 bad-blocks which i fixed at the
> best by replacing (zero-filling, low-leveling) them?.
Post the Everest SMART report here.
Rod Speed
> On Nov 12, 1:09 pm, Franc Zabkar <fzab...@iinternode.on.net> wrote:
>
> Here is Everest ones about "reallocated sectors count":
>
> 05 Reallocated Sector Count 36 98 98 98 OK: Value is normal
> I also check with ActiveSMART saying the raw value is: 98
Then you have 98 reallocated sectors, the drive is dying.
> Arno said it counts down,
He didnt say that about the raw value.
> i had 2 bad-sectors at the past which i fixed using Seatools.
> Since that, i haven't had any bad-blocks shown
> in chkdsk or Seatools full surface scan.
> So what does that values mean?
The last number, 98, is the number of reallocated sectors.
> Is there new thing to concern?
Yes, the drive is dying.
Rod Speed
> On Nov 12, 1:09 pm, Franc Zabkar <fzab...@iinternode.on.net> wrote:
>
> Here is Everest ones about "reallocated sectors count":
>
> 05 Reallocated Sector Count 36 98 98
> 98 OK: Value is normal
> I also check with ActiveSMART saying the raw value is: 98
> Arno said it counts down,
No he didnt about the raw value.
> i had 2 bad-sectors at the past which i fixed using Seatools.
> Since that, i haven't had any bad-blocks shown in chkdsk or
> Seatools full surface scan.
Because the bads have been reallocated away.
> So what does that values mean?
> ID Attribute Description Threshold Value Worst Data Status
> 05 Reallocated Sector Count 36 98 98 98 OK: Value is normal
That you have 98 reallocated sectors.
> It also says status is OK.
Ignore that.
> Which result will i rely on? Manufacturer's full/surface scan utility or SMART?
The raw SMART value, that indicates that the drive is dying.
> There are some users trying to help, but i want a explict explanation.
The high raw value shows that the drive is reallocating lots of bad sectors and that
means that the drive is dying. It shouldnt be seeing so many reallocated sectors.
> This topic is a bit messed up, that's why i haven't
received an "exact" and "satisfactory" response.
The other problem is that your english is a bit fractured and it isnt
always easy to understand exactly what you are asking at times.
> Please interpret my values, if you are sure.
Yes, I am sure.
> Wrong information makes annoying as you know :(
And thats another rather fractured sentence in english, tho the meaning is clear in that case.
> Thanks for the care...
Franc Zabkar
<kimirai...@gmail.com> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>Here is Everest ones about "reallocated sectors count":
>
>ID Attribute Description Threshold Value Worst
>Data Status
>05 Reallocated Sector Count 36 98 98
>98 OK: Value is normal
>
>I also check with ActiveSMART saying the raw value is: 98
>
>Arno said it counts down, i had 2 bad-sectors at the past which i
>fixed using Seatools. Since that, i haven't had any bad-blocks shown
>in chkdsk or Seatools full surface scan.
>
>So what does that values mean?
>ID Attribute Description Threshold Value Worst
>Data Status
>05 Reallocated Sector Count 36 98 98
>98 OK: Value is normal
>
>SmartUDM from Dos: Raw: 000000000062h
> reallocated sectors: 98 (but how
>reliable is it?)
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.
kimiraikkonen
>
> > Says "reallocated sectors count" value lower is better.
>
> >> ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE
> >> UPDATED WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE 1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 0x000f
> >> 100 100 051 Pre-fail Always - 0 3 Spin_Up_Time
> >> 0x0007 100 100 025 Pre-fail Always - 6080 4
> >> Start_Stop_Count 0x0032 099 099 000 Old_age
> >> Always - 1115 5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct 0x0033 253
> >> 253 010 Pre-fail Always - 0
>
> >> "Value", "Worst" and "Threshold" are cooked values, and lower is
> >> always worse. "Raw_Value" is the register value, and here hogher
> >> is indeed worse for reallocated sector count. Note that this disk
> >> has zero reallocated sectors.
> > So, as summary you advise to consider / care "raw value" ?
>
> Yep.
>
> > Which programs will show "raw value"?
>
>
> > Could you give an Windows-based sample?
>
> ID Attribute Description Threshold Value Worst Data Status
> 05 Reallocated Sector Count 11 100 100 0 OK: Value is normal
>
> > I tried about 3 programs saying only: current, value, threshold and worst...
> > Rod Speed, why doesn't that question make no sense in "English"?
>
> Its rather fractured english, not clear what you are asking.
>
> > I just wondered if current values i get about "reallocated
> > sectors count" related to 2 bad-blocks which i fixed at the
> > best by replacing (zero-filling, low-leveling) them?.
>
> Post the Everest SMART report here.
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.
Folkert Rienstra
And how easily one can be fooled.
> > I want to tell its short history:
>
> > At past i had 2 bad sectors on that(same) disk which were not
> > physical(logical) and replaced (zero-filled) via Seatools(officiall
> > diagnostic utility) easily.
> > Since then, i frequently scan full surface of my drive i don't see
> > any
> > bad sectors reported since 2 bad ones have been repaired by Seatools.
>
> > So what is "98" mean at this case?
> It just means 98 out of 100, with no fixed relation.
Utter useless nonsense again.
> Unless it
> ist the "raw" value, then it means 98 defective and reallocated secors.
Yup, and both values are in that line.
> That would be a lot.
Not really.
> In your case it could mean that the vendor has
> choosen to decrese it by 1 for each reallocated secor and therefore
> allow 64 reallocated secors before a bad SMART status is reached.
More nonsense.
>
> > So, is there anything than i must concern at the moment? Is there any
> > present bad sectors although i fixed(zero-filled) those 2 ones before?
>
> After long SMART selftest/surface scan, there should be no
> unrecognized bad secors. BTW, recognized bad secors that
> could not (yet) be reallocated are listed unter the
> "Pending sectors" (or the like) attribute.
>
> > Also "reallocated sectors count" is descibed as "lower value is
> > better" so if threshold is 36,
> > isn't going to lower value better? Confusing?
>
> Huh? Where did you find "lower value is better"?
> All SMART attributes have a "value decresed on problem" semantics
> in the "coocked" form.
Ooh, that makes somuch sense.
> Of course in the raw form, it can be different,
Oh really.
> but the threshold and ordinary attibute display is cooked.
Like your brains, babblebot?
> Let me give you an example from one of my disks:
And nicely readable it is, babblebot.
>
> ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE UPDATED
> WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE 1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 0x000f 100 100 051
> Pre-fail Always - 0 3 Spin_Up_Time 0x0007 100
> 100 025 Pre-fail Always - 6080 4 Start_Stop_Count
> 0x0032 099 099 000 Old_age Always - 1115 5
> Reallocated_Sector_Ct 0x0033 253 253 010 Pre-fail Always -
> 0
> "Value", "Worst" and "Threshold" are cooked values,
They are normalized values, babblebot. It's your brain that is cooked.
> and lower is always worse.
Right, babblebot, higher temperature is better, makes sense what.
> "Raw_Value" is the register value,
Like the other values are not, babblebot.
Folkert Rienstra
> > Hello,
> > I want to ask a question about my Seagate drives SMART attribute
> > "reallocated sector count".
>
> > "reallocated sector count" is at the limit. The values are i look with
> > my Smart utility:
>
> > Current: 98, Worst: 98, Threshold: 36, Data: 98
>
> That is not at the limit.
> These attributes count down.
Nope, only the first 2 do.
> The limit would be 36, it is currently at 98, likely down from 100.
>
> > I checked my drive a lot of times with SEATOOLS with "complete FULL
> > scan" also checked with regular chkdsk /f function. No bad blocks are
> > found (zero) 0 kb.
>
> That is why these are "re"-allocated. The bad blocks are not visible anymore.
>
> > So, what does the warning about "reallocated sector count"?
>
> > Are they really bad sectors which are hidden or what is it?
>
> > If there are bad blocks hidden, why is there popular utilities like
> > Seatools which can find bad blocks and replace them (zero-fill
> > replacing)?
>
> Because the disk can not allways reallocated bad blocks.
> It basically can if a) the block is bad but still readable or
Ooh, that makes so much sense.
> b)
> it found the bad block in a surface scan and it gets overwritten
> befiore it gets read.
More utter nonsense from babblebot, as always.
>
> > Please help.
> Now, there are no raw numbers given by the SMART utility you use.
Yes, it does. Babblebot, clueless as always.
It's the fourth value, labeled "Data", babblebot.
> Or this disk does not give you a raw reallocation count.
Of course it does, you babblebot moron.
> One thing you should do is to tru to get a raw realocation count.
He has already, moronic babblebot.
> This may be two sectors or 200, hard to tell.
Try 98.
> The other thing is that while your disk
> may have a problem, it might also be fine.
Ooh, more sense from the babblebot.
Rod Speed
Sometimes thats hard because its not clear what you were trying to say/ask.
> Today, again i applied Seatools full scan (long test) and passed successfully. Really weird.
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.
kimiraikkonen
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.
Arno Wagner
> I don't think its raw value. How will i know? There are only:
> current:98 worst:98 threshold:36 data:98. I don't think there are much
> bad blocks (98 is so much) and never had any serious problem that may
> point 98 bad-blocks.
>> > So, is there anything than i must concern at the moment? Is there any
>> > present bad sectors although i fixed(zero-filled) those 2 ones
>> > before?
>>
>> After long SMART selftest/surface scan, there should be no
>> unrecognized bad secors. BTW, recognized bad secors that
>> could not (yet) be reallocated are listed unter the
>> "Pending sectors" (or the like) attribute.
>>
>> > Also "reallocated sectors count" is descibed as "lower value is
>> > better" so if threshold is 36,
>> > isn't going to lower value better? Confusing?
>>
>> Huh? Where did you find "lower value is better"? All
>> SMART attributes have a "value decresed on problem" semantics
>> in the "coocked" form. Of course in the raw form, it can be
>> different, but the threshold and ordinary attibute display is
>> cooked. Let me give you an example from one of my disks:
>>From here an other sites:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Monitoring%2C_Analysis%2C_and_Reporting_Technology
> Says "reallocated sectors count" value lower is better.
>> ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE UPDATED WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE
>> 1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate 0x000f 100 100 051 Pre-fail Always - 0
>> 3 Spin_Up_Time 0x0007 100 100 025 Pre-fail Always - 6080
>> 4 Start_Stop_Count 0x0032 099 099 000 Old_age Always - 1115
>> 5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct 0x0033 253 253 010 Pre-fail Always - 0
>>
>> "Value", "Worst" and "Threshold" are cooked values, and lower is
>> always worse. "Raw_Value" is the register value, and here hogher
>> is indeed worse for reallocated sector count. Note that this disk
>> has zero reallocated sectors.
> So, as summary you advise to consider / care "raw value" ?
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....)
> Which
> programs will show "raw value"? Could you give an Windows-based
> sample? I tried about 3 programs saying only: current, value,
> threshold and worst...
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
Arno Wagner
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 10:55:15 -0800, kimiraikkonen
> <kimirai...@gmail.com> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>>Hello,
>>I want to ask a question about my Seagate drives SMART attribute
>>"reallocated sector count".
>>
>>"reallocated sector count" is at the limit. The values are i look with
>>my Smart utility:
>>
>>Current: 98, Worst: 98, Threshold: 36, Data: 98
> You need to monitor the raw value. I use a DOS utility named SmartUDM
> for this purpose. For Windows there is Everest Home Edition.
> My Seagate 13GB HD has been steadily growing defects. Two years ago
> they were at 34, today I have 130. During the past week about 10 bad
> sectors were added. I have now backed up and retired the drive.
Increase in bad sectors is a very bad sign.
> Based on what my Everest and SmartUDM logs show (see below), and
> assuming that the numbers are not scaled up for larger HDs, I suspect
> that you may have between ~80 and ~120 reallocated sectors.
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
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
Rod Speed
> "Rod",
No need to quote that, that is my real name.
> here is full SMART report from Everest,
It looks fine.
> it say everyvalue is normal.
It always does unless the drive is very close to imminent
death, ignore that and focus on the Data numbers.
> Meanwhile, this reallocated sectors may remain from past
Yes, they certainly are, but you dont get that many
reallocated sectors unless the drive is dying.
> and i don't want to conclude unless they dramatically continue to populate.
Doesnt need to be dramatic, if they keep increasing, the drive is dying.
> 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
Thats normal for a seagate. That value does vary with the manufacturer.
> 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
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.
> C3 Hardware ECC Recovered 0 64 53
> 171388353 OK: Always passes
Ditto with seagate drives.
> 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
Those two say that there arent any bads that havent been reallocated.
> C7 Ultra ATA CRC Error Rate 0 200 200
> 0 OK: Always passes
Thats the ribbon cable, its fine.
Rod Speed
But not the most readable report around.
Franc Zabkar
to keyboard and composed:
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.
Arno Wagner
> On 13 Nov 2007 00:57:43 GMT, Arno Wagner <m...@privacy.net> put finger
> to keyboard and composed:
>>Previously Franc Zabkar <fza...@iinternode.on.net> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>>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
> I've been living with a dying drive for at least two years.
Gutsy! ;-)
> 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.
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
kimiraikkonen
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.
Folkert Rienstra
>
> > > Hello,
> > > I want to ask a question about my Seagate drives SMART attribute
> > > "reallocated sector count".
> > >
> > > "reallocated sector count" is at the limit. The values are i look with
> > > my Smart utility:
> > >
> > > Current: 98, Worst: 98, Threshold: 36, Data: 98
>
> > You need to monitor the raw value. I use a DOS utility named SmartUDM
> > for this purpose. For Windows there is Everest Home Edition.
>
> > My Seagate 13GB HD has been steadily growing defects. Two years ago
> > they were at 34, today I have 130. During the past week about 10 bad
> > sectors were added. I have now backed up and retired the drive.
>
> Increase in bad sectors is a very bad sign.
>
> > Based on what my Everest and SmartUDM logs show (see below), and
> > assuming that the numbers are not scaled up for larger HDs, I suspect
> > that you may have between ~80 and ~120 reallocated sectors.
>
> 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....
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.
>
> Arno
Folkert Rienstra
>
> > > Here is Everest ones about "reallocated sectors count":
> > >
> > > ID Attribute Description Threshold Value Worst
> > > Data Status
> > > 05 Reallocated Sector Count 36 98 98
> > > 98 OK: Value is normal
> > >
> > > I also check with ActiveSMART saying the raw value is: 98
> > >
> > > Arno said it counts down, i had 2 bad-sectors at the past which i
> > > fixed using Seatools. Since that, i haven't had any bad-blocks shown
> > > in chkdsk or Seatools full surface scan.
> > >
> > > So what does that values mean?
> > > ID Attribute Description Threshold Value Worst
> > > Data Status
> > > 05 Reallocated Sector Count 36 98 98
> > > 98 OK: Value is normal
> > >
> > > SmartUDM from Dos: Raw: 000000000062h
> > > reallocated sectors: 98 (but how reliable is it?)
>
> > 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.
>
> That looks very likely to me too now. Quite confusing, I agree.
You are a babblebot with a cooked brain. Nothing is confusing to you.
Folkert Rienstra
> to keyboard and composed:
>
> > Previously Franc Zabkar <fza...@iinternode.on.net> wrote:
>
> > > 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.
> >
> > That looks very likely to me too now. Quite confusing, I agree.
You're Babblebot. You can't do anything about it. It's in your DNA.
> >
> > 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
>
> 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.
Which is still a minute percentage of the number of spare sectors available.
>
> - Franc Zabkar
Folkert Rienstra
Pity about the moronic answers they get.
>
> Arno
Folkert Rienstra
news:1194948215.6...@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com
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.
>
> Regards.
Rod Speed
> Arno, Rod (no quatiton mark :-) ),
Just as well, the death squad would have got its orders otherwise |-)
> 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 english is too fractured there for it to be clear what the last half is asking.
> 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,
Yes.
> but still couldn't completely understand for Seagate what "threshold - 36" means?
Dont worry about it, those thresholds are too conservative to be useful in this situation.
> It shouldn't be percantage, does it mean that i'm allowed
> to allocate 100-36 = 64 bad ones? (frustrating)
No, it doesnt mean that.
> 3- The other SMART values are fine as stated by many programs. Right?
Yes, but its the Data value that matters, not what the SMART utes say.
> 4- A "reallocated sector count" shows the amount of reallocated /
> replaced sectors silently while the drive is operating.
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.
> 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.
Yes, but not necessarily on a read that fails, see above.
> If the sector is completely unreadable or unreallocatable, you see it as "bad"
> marked in surface scan tools like Seatools. Did i understand correct?
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.
> 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.
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.
> Those 5 questions are the ones i see answered them clearly.
Thats too fractured to understand too.
> Again, thank you for following and helping. Very helpful...
Thats what these technical newsgroups are for.
kimiraikkonen
> kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkone...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > Arno, Rod (no quatiton mark :-) ),
>
> Just as well, the death squad would have got its orders otherwise |-)
>
> > 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 english is too fractured there for it to be clear what the last half is asking.
Then teach me the correct way of explaining, sorry if couldn't put
thoughts into words in my mind.
> > 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,
>
> Yes.
>
> > but still couldn't completely understand for Seagate what "threshold - 36" means?
>
> Dont worry about it, those thresholds are too conservative to be useful in this situation.
>
> > It shouldn't be percantage, does it mean that i'm allowed
> > to allocate 100-36 = 64 bad ones? (frustrating)
>
> No, it doesnt mean that.
>
> > 3- The other SMART values are fine as stated by many programs. Right?
>
> Yes, but its the Data value that matters, not what the SMART utes say.
>
> > 4- A "reallocated sector count" shows the amount of reallocated /
> > replaced sectors silently while the drive is operating.
>
> 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.
>
> > 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.
>
> Yes, but not necessarily on a read that fails, see above.
>
> > If the sector is completely unreadable or unreallocatable, you see it as "bad"
> > marked in surface scan tools like Seatools. Did i understand correct?
>
> 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.
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?
> Its done like that so you can try hard to get data out of the sector before its reallocated.
Did it but still drive seems OK.
> > 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.
>
> 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.
>
> > Those 5 questions are the ones i see answered them clearly.
>
> Thats too fractured to understand too.
Again language critisism, sorry if there were due to confusion.
> > Again, thank you for following and helping. Very helpful...
>
> Thats what these technical newsgroups are for.
Correct.
Rod Speed
> On Nov 13, 9:28 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkone...@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>>> Arno, Rod (no quatiton mark :-) ),
>>
>> Just as well, the death squad would have got its orders otherwise |-)
>>
>>> 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 english is too fractured there for it to be clear what the last half is asking.
> Then teach me the correct way of explaining,
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.
> Then, when do a user see bad sectors reported after a full / surface scan?
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.
>> Its done like that so you can try hard to get
>> data out of the sector before its reallocated.
> Did it but still drive seems OK.
Because the diagnostic has rewritten those bad sectors, because you told it to try that.
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
> Previously kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkone...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
So, they were containing data before they've got reallocated. 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)
>
> 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.
>
> > 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.
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.
>
> > 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.
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?
> > 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.
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?
> > Those 5 questions are the ones i see answered them clearly.
> > Again, thank you for following and helping. Very helpful...
>
> You are welcome.
>
> Arno
Thanks.
Rod Speed
> Arno Wagner <m...@privacy.net> wrote
>> kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkone...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> 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.
> 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.
>>> 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.
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.
>> 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.
> 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.
>> 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.
> 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.
>>> 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.
And he means the SMART complete surface scan, not the OS level one.
>> 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.
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
to keyboard and composed:
>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.
Rod Speed
And modern hard drives dont have the particular problem.
Franc Zabkar
<kimirai...@gmail.com> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>On Nov 14, 12:55 pm, Arno Wagner <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> Previously kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkone...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 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.
>
>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.
<snip>
>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.
Arno Wagner
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.
>> 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.
> 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.
>> > 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.
> 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
If a sector is about 512bytes, we can can't we calculate how many they
are?
> >> 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.
> > 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.
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.
>
>
> >> > 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.
> > 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.
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
> Arno Wagner <m...@privacy.net> wrote
>> kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkone...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkone...@gmail.com> wrote
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.
>>>> 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.
>>> 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.
> 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.
>>>>> 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.
>>> 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.
> 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
Huh? A sector is either completely bad or readable. No relation
to sector size.
>> >> 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.
>> > 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.
> 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).
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
> On Nov 15, 2:45 am, Arno Wagner <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> Previously kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkone...@gmail.com> 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
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.
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
Not necessarily, it may reuse the same sector.
Folkert Rienstra
Folkert Rienstra
> > On Nov 14, 12:55 pm, Arno Wagner <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> > > Previously kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkone...@gmail.com> wrote:
[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.
>
> > > > 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.
There is always a breaking point somewhere.
Otherwise bad sectors would not exist.
> > >
> > > 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?
> No.
Yes.
> But if you have bad sectors, they cannot be detected by a read only test.
Babblebot, utterly clueless as always.
Folkert Rienstra
> > On Nov 15, 2:45 am, Arno Wagner <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> > > Previously kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkone...@gmail.com> 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.
>
> Arno
Folkert Rienstra
> 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
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> 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
to keyboard and composed:
>Previously kimiraikkonen <kimirai...@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
kimiraikkonen
> kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkone...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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'.
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.
> > 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.
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
> > 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 you hadn't understood what i've told you, search google "head
contact" or "head crash" then see what it means.
> > 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.
That's good news, thanks at least for hardware ECC and others.
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.
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'.
> Really?
Yep, that dinosaur approach is WAY past its useby date now with SMART.
> Where are you working or what are you working for? "Professional"
Another incomprehensible question.
>> 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?
Most modern hard drive diagnostics use the SMART data now.
> That's another important point.
>>> 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.
> It's not on your hands to judge my English.
Corse it is.
> Don't conclude unless you're sure, if you feel
> that you're sure, query yourself more than once.
Get stuffed.
> If you're not tended to be helpful, do not post please.
Go and fuck yourself.
> This group is not English-teaching group.
You chose to post in this group and if what you say isnt comprehendable, that
needs to be pointed out to you so you can try again to say what you meant.
> My native language is not English.
Thats always been obvious.
> If it's yours, then try to learn different language and judje yourself how good you are.
I didnt choose to post in a language other than my native language.
> I
>>> 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 you hadn't understood what i've told you, search google
> "head contact" or "head crash" then see what it means.
And how was I ever supposed to know that you even intended the
use of the word head, when you didnt even include that word ?
And I know what those terms mean without using google, thanks.
Its very unlikely that you actually heard a head crash.
You would have heard something else instead.
That first sentence is very bad english, incomprehensible.
> OK, close (do not append) the topic.
You get no say on what I post.
> It's enough i think.
Your problem.
> Still to many confusions.
Only if you cant comprehend the basics.
kimiraikkonen
> kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkone...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >> kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkone...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> 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'.
> > Really?
>
> Yep, that dinosaur approach is WAY past its useby date now with SMART.
>
> > Where are you working or what are you working for? "Professional"
>
> Another incomprehensible question.
Just wondered what your job is. Nothing else (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?
>
> Most modern hard drive diagnostics use the SMART data now.
> > That's another important point.
> >>> 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.
> > It's not on your hands to judge my English.
>
> Corse it is.
Your opinion #1. Quizzes and formal documents would conclude better
than you with no doubt.
> > Don't conclude unless you're sure, if you feel
> > that you're sure, query yourself more than once.
>
> Get stuffed.
>
> > If you're not tended to be helpful, do not post please.
>
> Go and fuck yourself.
You'd better do it for yourself. I do not need.
> > This group is not English-teaching group.
>
> You chose to post in this group and if what you say isnt comprehendable, that
> needs to be pointed out to you so you can try again to say what you meant.
Yes, i chose, had very helpful posts, not only for group, there are
some others.I'm shy on saying the same things in order to avoid
message mess. I have a sensitive approach.
> > My native language is not English.
>
> Thats always been obvious.
It's your opinion agian #2. I don't take care.
> > If it's yours, then try to learn different language and judje yourself how good you are.
>
> I didnt choose to post in a language other than my native language.
Try it to see how good you are.
> > I
> >>> 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 you hadn't understood what i've told you, search google
> > "head contact" or "head crash" then see what it means.
>
> And how was I ever supposed to know that you even intended the
> use of the word head, when you didnt even include that word ?
>
> And I know what those terms mean without using google, thanks.
>
> Its very unlikely that you actually heard a head crash.
Not likely, exactly. Maybe drive retries to spin. The sound comes
definelty from drive, however i got the answer, again as long as full
physical integrity test is passed, no need to worry.
Anyway, except reallocated sectors count value, "spin/retry count" is
sometimes highlighted as in dangerous position by Smart software like
Hardware ECC recovered
> You would have heard something else instead.
They aren't your ears, beleive me. Tested with several methods.
No, contact, but not always, rarely.
Again...Your opinion #3. No need to say anymore.
> > OK, close (do not append) the topic.
>
> You get no say on what I post.
I know, if it makes you feel better post for trash.
> > It's enough i think.
>
> Your problem.
> > Still to many confusions.
>
> Only if you cant comprehend the basics.
I always try to do my best as long as the enviroment is enough clear
to understand.
Sometimes groups and post are helpful like previous posters, sometimes
reference website articles are more.
Depends.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkone...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkone...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> 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'.
>>> Really?
>> Yep, that dinosaur approach is WAY past its useby date now with SMART.
>>> Where are you working or what are you working for? "Professional"
>> Another incomprehensible question.
> Just wondered what your job is. Nothing else (professional).
Been doing this stuff likely since before you were born.
>>>> 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?
>> Most modern hard drive diagnostics use the SMART data now.
>>> That's another important point.
>>>>> 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.
>>> It's not on your hands to judge my English.
>> Corse it is.
> Your opinion #1.
It isnt opinion, its fact. That anyone can see for themselves.
> Quizzes and formal documents would conclude better than you with no doubt.
None of those are needed to realise that you have a problem with your english.
>>> Don't conclude unless you're sure, if you feel
>>> that you're sure, query yourself more than once.
>> Get stuffed.
>>> If you're not tended to be helpful, do not post please.
>> Go and fuck yourself.
> You'd better do it for yourself. I do not need.
Thats a colloquial way of saying that you dont get to tell anyone about how they can post, ever.
>>> This group is not English-teaching group.
>> You chose to post in this group and if what you say isnt comprehendable, that
>> needs to be pointed out to you so you can try again to say what you meant.
> Yes, i chose, had very helpful posts, not only for group, there
> are some others. I'm shy on saying the same things in order
> to avoid message mess. I have a sensitive approach.
>>> My native language is not English.
>> Thats always been obvious.
> It's your opinion agian #2.
Nope, another fact.
> I don't take care.
You should have said "I don't care" there.
And you clearly do care too.
>>> If it's yours, then try to learn different language and judje yourself how good you are.
>> I didnt choose to post in a language other than my native language.
> Try it to see how good you are.
Dont need to. I decided long ago that anyone with a clue posts in english.
Because that is by far the most commonly used language in usenet.
>>>>> 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 you hadn't understood what i've told you, search google
>>> "head contact" or "head crash" then see what it means.
>> And how was I ever supposed to know that you even intended the
>> use of the word head, when you didnt even include that word ?
>> And I know what those terms mean without using google, thanks.
>> Its very unlikely that you actually heard a head crash.
> Not likely, exactly. Maybe drive retries to spin. The sound comes
> definelty from drive, however i got the answer, again as long as
> full physical integrity test is passed, no need to worry.
That answer is just plain wrong.
> Anyway, except reallocated sectors count value, "spin/retry count"
> is sometimes highlighted as in dangerous position by Smart
> software like Hardware ECC recovered
Yes, but Hardware ECC recovered isnt necessarily
a problem with some manufacturer's drives.
>> You would have heard something else instead.
> They aren't your ears, beleive me.
No thanks, it wouldnt have been a head crash.
> Tested with several methods. No, contact, but not always, rarely.
What you actually heard was the drive recalibrating.
> Again...Your opinion #3.
Nope, fact, again.
> No need to say anymore.
Fraid so. You wont find anyone except a troll that would
say that that particular sentence is comprehensible english.
>>> OK, close (do not append) the topic.
>> You get no say on what I post.
> I know, if it makes you feel better post for trash.
Another with very bad english.
>>> It's enough i think.
>> Your problem.
>>> Still to many confusions.
>> Only if you cant comprehend the basics.
> I always try to do my best as long as the enviroment is enough clear
> to understand. Sometimes groups and post are helpful like previous
> posters, sometimes reference website articles are more.
> Depends.
No evidence that you have actually understood any of the basics, from any source.
kimiraikkonen
> kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkone...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >> kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkone...@gmail.com> wrote
> >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >>>> kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkone...@gmail.com> wrote
> >>>>> 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'.
> >>> Really?
> >> Yep, that dinosaur approach is WAY past its useby date now with SMART.
> >>> Where are you working or what are you working for? "Professional"
> >> Another incomprehensible question.
> > Just wondered what your job is. Nothing else (professional).
>
> Been doing this stuff likely since before you were born.
Possible.
> >>>> 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?
> >> Most modern hard drive diagnostics use the SMART data now.
> >>> That's another important point.
> >>>>> 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.
> >>> It's not on your hands to judge my English.
> >> Corse it is.
> > Your opinion #1.
>
> It isnt opinion, its fact. That anyone can see for themselves.
Your fact #1
> > Quizzes and formal documents would conclude better than you with no doubt.
>
> None of those are needed to realise that you have a problem with your english.
Your conclusion.
> >>> Don't conclude unless you're sure, if you feel
> >>> that you're sure, query yourself more than once.
> >> Get stuffed.
> >>> If you're not tended to be helpful, do not post please.
> >> Go and fuck yourself.
> > You'd better do it for yourself. I do not need.
>
> Thats a colloquial way of saying that you dont get to tell anyone about how they can post, ever.
You shouldn't say it before, thus i had to answer.
> >>> This group is not English-teaching group.
> >> You chose to post in this group and if what you say isnt comprehendable, that
> >> needs to be pointed out to you so you can try again to say what you meant.
> > Yes, i chose, had very helpful posts, not only for group, there
> > are some others. I'm shy on saying the same things in order
> > to avoid message mess. I have a sensitive approach.
> >>> My native language is not English.
> >> Thats always been obvious.
> > It's your opinion agian #2.
>
> Nope, another fact.
Your fact #2
> > I don't take care.
>
> You should have said "I don't care" there.
Sorry, mistyped.
> And you clearly do care too.
You're just supposing it.
> >>> If it's yours, then try to learn different language and judje yourself how good you are.
> >> I didnt choose to post in a language other than my native language.
> > Try it to see how good you are.
>
> Dont need to. I decided long ago that anyone with a clue posts in english.
>
> Because that is by far the most commonly used language in usenet.
It was known before you declared it.
> >>>>> 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 you hadn't understood what i've told you, search google
> >>> "head contact" or "head crash" then see what it means.
> >> And how was I ever supposed to know that you even intended the
> >> use of the word head, when you didnt even include that word ?
> >> And I know what those terms mean without using google, thanks.
> >> Its very unlikely that you actually heard a head crash.
> > Not likely, exactly. Maybe drive retries to spin. The sound comes
> > definelty from drive, however i got the answer, again as long as
> > full physical integrity test is passed, no need to worry.
>
> That answer is just plain wrong.
>
> > Anyway, except reallocated sectors count value, "spin/retry count"
> > is sometimes highlighted as in dangerous position by Smart
> > software like Hardware ECC recovered
>
> Yes, but Hardware ECC recovered isnt necessarily
> a problem with some manufacturer's drives.
Ok for this.
> >> You would have heard something else instead.
> > They aren't your ears, beleive me.
>
> No thanks, it wouldnt have been a head crash.
>
> > Tested with several methods. No, contact, but not always, rarely.
>
> What you actually heard was the drive recalibrating.
Possible, but you should have heard before you decide early.
Your fact #3
> > No need to say anymore.
>
> Fraid so. You wont find anyone except a troll that would
> say that that particular sentence is comprehensible english.
Your fact #4
> >>> OK, close (do not append) the topic.
> >> You get no say on what I post.
> > I know, if it makes you feel better post for trash.
>
> Another with very bad english.
Your fact #4
> >>> It's enough i think.
> >> Your problem.
> >>> Still to many confusions.
> >> Only if you cant comprehend the basics.
> > I always try to do my best as long as the enviroment is enough clear
> > to understand. Sometimes groups and post are helpful like previous
> > posters, sometimes reference website articles are more.
> > Depends.
>
> No evidence that you have actually understood any of the basics, from any source.
Or couldn't explain enough clear to make you understand that basis.
> >>> There are some good definitions on Wikipedia about "reallocated sectors."
Your facts are yours.
BTW, sorry for your fame:
Bye
chrisv
>kimiraikkonen wrote:
>
>> BTW, sorry for your fame:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage/browse_thread/thread/c4ea774e304aef58/ad32331015efb66a
>>
>> Bye
>
>LOL! I see you finally figured out what Rod (Corncob) Speed really is all
>about.
Says the "Rita" troll, fresh from making a complete jackass of
"herself" in the video group.
Arno Wagner
> 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.
Sounds pretty foolish to me. For example the smartd SMART monitor
does report any changes in pre-fail attributes per default, so at
least Linux users will typically do better, if they do SMART
monitoring.
> 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)
Looks all fine to me, ecept for the reallocation count.
Arno
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkone...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkone...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkone...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> 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'.
>>>>> Really?
>>>> Yep, that dinosaur approach is WAY past its useby date now with SMART.
>>>>> Where are you working or what are you working for? "Professional"
>>>> Another incomprehensible question.
>>> Just wondered what your job is. Nothing else (professional).
>> Been doing this stuff likely since before you were born.
> Possible.
Certain.
>>>>>> 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?
>>>> Most modern hard drive diagnostics use the SMART data now.
>>>>> That's another important point.
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> It's not on your hands to judge my English.
>>>> Corse it is.
>>> Your opinion #1.
>> It isnt opinion, its fact. That anyone can see for themselves.
> Your fact #1
>>> Quizzes and formal documents would conclude better than you with no doubt.
>> None of those are needed to realise that you have a problem with your english.
> Your conclusion.
One which everyone else reaches too.
>>>>> Don't conclude unless you're sure, if you feel
>>>>> that you're sure, query yourself more than once.
>>>> Get stuffed.
>>>>> If you're not tended to be helpful, do not post please.
>>>> Go and fuck yourself.
>>> You'd better do it for yourself. I do not need.
>> Thats a colloquial way of saying that you dont
>> get to tell anyone about how they can post, ever.
> You shouldn't say it before,
You get no say what so ever what anyone else should say, ever.
> thus i had to answer.
No you didnt.
>>>>> This group is not English-teaching group.
>>>> You chose to post in this group and if what you say isnt
>>>> comprehendable, that needs to be pointed out to you
>>>> so you can try again to say what you meant.
>>> Yes, i chose, had very helpful posts, not only for group, there
>>> are some others. I'm shy on saying the same things in order
>>> to avoid message mess. I have a sensitive approach.
>>>>> My native language is not English.
>>>> Thats always been obvious.
>>> It's your opinion agian #2.
>> Nope, another fact.
> Your fact #2
>>> I don't take care.
>> You should have said "I don't care" there.
> Sorry, mistyped.
That isnt a mistype.
>> And you clearly do care too.
> You're just supposing it.
Nope, its obvious to everyone that you do care.
>>>>> If it's yours, then try to learn different language
>>>>> and judje yourself how good you are.
>>>> I didnt choose to post in a language other than my native language.
>>> Try it to see how good you are.
>> Dont need to. I decided long ago that anyone with a clue posts in english.
>> Because that is by far the most commonly used language in usenet.
> It was known before you declared it.
Duh. I only said that because of your stupid line about me posting in any other language.
You should have chosen your parents more carefully.
> Ok for this.
Nope, if you were actually getting head crashes, the
SMART report would be nothing like what you are getting.
>>> Again...Your opinion #3.
>> Nope, fact, again.
> Your fact #3
> Your fact #4
> Your fact #4
Cant even count to 5.
>>>>> It's enough i think.
>>>> Your problem.
>>>>> Still to many confusions.
>>>> Only if you cant comprehend the basics.
>>> I always try to do my best as long as the enviroment is enough clear
>>> to understand. Sometimes groups and post are helpful like previous
>>> posters, sometimes reference website articles are more.
>>> Depends.
>> No evidence that you have actually understood any of the basics, from any source.
> Or couldn't explain enough clear to make you understand that basis.
I understood the basics since before you were born thanks.
>>>>> There are some good definitions on Wikipedia about "reallocated sectors."
> Your facts are yours.
Nope, they're obvious to anyone with a clue.
> BTW, sorry for your fame:
You're lying now.
Thats just another silly little child that got done like a fucking dinner, just like you did, child.
> Bye
Good riddance.
Franc Zabkar
<kimirai...@gmail.com> put finger to keyboard and composed:
From what I've seen, good Seagate drives normally have large numbers
for Raw Read Error Rate, Seek Error Rate, and Hardware ECC Recovered.
In any case I don't believe the numbers necessarily reflect errors.
For example, based on my testing, Seagate's "Seek Error Rate" stat
appears to be a count rather than a rate, and it appears to count
seeks rather than seek errors.
See this old thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage/browse_thread/thread/9519f7ad86d7be72/14f4a561a397493c?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#14f4a561a397493c
Here are some examples of SmartUDM reports.
Seagate 120GB HD:
http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/120GB.RPT
Fujitsu 6GB HD:
http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/6GB.RPT
Seagate 13GB HD (with 119 reallocated sectors):
http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/SmartUDM/13GB.RPT
John Turco
<heavily edited for brevity>
> Sorry, if the lines slide out of the page, i use Google to access
> newsgroups, don't know how you get here :-(
>
> Thanks.
Hello,
A free NNTP server (aioe.cjb.net) allows me to both read, and to
post to, various Usenet (non-binary) newsgroups.
Please, go here, for further information:
Aioe.org Home Page <http://www.aioe.org>
Good luck!
Cordially,
John Turco <jt...@concentric.net>