Re: Need help with "reallocated sector count"?

kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkonen85@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 12, 9:17 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkone...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 12, 4:25 am, Arno Wagner <m...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Previously kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkone...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 11 Kas m, 22:55, Arno Wagner <m...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Previously kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkone...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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
Hi Arno,
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?

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.

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_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" ?

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.

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.

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.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: moving boot drive to new HD & recovering data from corrupt HD
    ... The last bit of information, excessive reallocated sectors, sheds a ... You don't have logical disk corruption. ... During manufacture of a hard drive, x amount of extra, unused sectors, are ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware)
  • Re: SMART errors - are they for real? or, BIOS weirdness?
    ... No additional email messages about this problem will be sent. ... They mean that you have two sectors that cannot ... This is done by the disk hardware, and have nothing to do with the BIOS. ... If you use smartctl on a health disk, the number of reallocated sectors must ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: Need help with "reallocated sector count"?
    ... "reallocated sector count" is at the limit. ... Are they really bad sectors which are hidden or what is it? ... Or this disk does not give you a raw reallocation count. ... allow 64 reallocated secors before a bad SMART status is reached. ...
    (comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage)
  • Re: HDD suddenly failed, please help - Update
    ... vendor specific bytes, which typically are divided into an 8 bit ... sectors, even using your novel interpretation of the 05 value. ... pending isnt the same as bad. ... but he has some number of reallocated sectors too ...
    (comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage)
  • Re: Need help with "reallocated sector count"?
    ... Pure coincidence. ... 98 bad sectors is a high number. ... that was incredible slow and has about 1100 reallocated sectors. ... i.e. above the threshold. ...
    (comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage)