Need help with "reallocated sector count"?
in [Storage]
|
Prev: INT13/02h Read error (AX=0100, DL=80) trying xp installation in SATA
Next: Need to create a CDFS partition on a USB key
From: kimiraikkonen on 11 Nov 2007 16:22 On 11 Kas m, 22:55, Arno Wagner <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote: > Previously kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkone...(a)gmail.com> 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 that 100-98 = 2 bad sectors are those ones which were replaced and OK now? 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.
From: kimiraikkonen on 11 Nov 2007 16:47 On 11 Kas m, 22:55, Arno Wagner <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote: > Previously kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkone...(a)gmail.com> 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? 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.
From: Arno Wagner on 11 Nov 2007 21:25 Previously kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkonen85(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 11 Kas m, 22:55, Arno Wagner <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote: >> Previously kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkone...(a)gmail.com> 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. > 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
From: Rod Speed on 11 Nov 2007 22:50 kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkonen85(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 11 Kas m, 21:47, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkone...(a)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.
From: kimiraikkonen on 12 Nov 2007 01:38
On Nov 12, 4:25 am, Arno Wagner <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote: > Previously kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkone...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On 11 Kas m, 22:55, Arno Wagner <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote: > >> Previously kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkone...(a)gmail.com> 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_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" ? 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... > 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 |