Re: Need help with "reallocated sector count"?

kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkonen85@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkone...@xxxxxxxxx> 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.

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 *** 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.

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.

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

Sorry, if the lines slide out of the page,

The correct terminology is wrap.

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

You can see that from the post headers.

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

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.

There are some good definitions on Wikipedia about "reallocated sectors."


.