Re: Need help with "reallocated sector count"?

On 13 Nov 2007 00:57:43 GMT, Arno Wagner <me@xxxxxxxxxxx> put finger
to keyboard and composed:

Previously Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. This last
week was the last straw, though.

I find that Seagate's threshold value of 36 is somewhat optimistic. If
I have correctly interpreted my logs, then each percentage (?) point
corresponds to a loss of approximately 40 sectors. So a value of 36
represents a loss of 64 points, which in turn corresponds to about
2560 reallocated sectors.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Need help with "reallocated sector count"?
    ... Pure coincidence. ... 98 bad sectors is a high number. ... corresponds to a loss of approximately 40 sectors. ... represents a loss of 64 points, which in turn corresponds to about ...
    (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)
  • 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)
Quantcast