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: Folkert Rienstra on 15 Nov 2007 15:44 Arno Wagner wrote in news:5q2khvFtv7l1U2(a)mid.individual.net > Previously kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkonen85(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Nov 15, 2:45 am, Arno Wagner <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote: > > > Previously kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkone...(a)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
From: Folkert Rienstra on 15 Nov 2007 15:45 kimiraikkonen wrote in news:d7c5e8e4-3788-453b-ac81-3032b6db9412(a)b36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com > 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. > > 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 .. Rate) 0 100 253 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. > i use Google to access newsgroups, don't know how you get here :-( > > Thanks.
From: Franc Zabkar on 15 Nov 2007 15:53 On 15 Nov 2007 10:15:27 GMT, Arno Wagner <me(a)privacy.net> put finger to keyboard and composed: >Previously kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkonen85(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Nov 15, 2:45 am, Arno Wagner <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote: >>> Previously kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkone...(a)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 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. - Franc Zabkar -- Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
From: kimiraikkonen on 15 Nov 2007 16:36 On Nov 15, 9:02 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....(a)gmail.com> wrote: > kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkone...(a)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. > > > > 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. 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.
From: chrisv on 16 Nov 2007 09:34
Rita � Berkowitz wrote: >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. |