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: Rod Speed on 12 Nov 2007 14:17 kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkonen85(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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" ? 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.
From: Rod Speed on 12 Nov 2007 14:20 kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkonen85(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 12, 1:09 pm, Franc Zabkar <fzab...(a)iinternode.on.net> wrote: >> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 10:55:15 -0800, kimiraikkonen >> <kimiraikkone...(a)gmail.com> put finger to keyboard and composed: >> >>> 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 >> >> You need to monitor the raw value. I use a DOS utility named SmartUDM >> for this purpose. For Windows there is Everest Home Edition. >> >> My Seagate 13GB HD has been steadily growing defects. Two years ago >> they were at 34, today I have 130. During the past week about 10 bad >> sectors were added. I have now backed up and retired the drive. >> >> Based on what my Everest and SmartUDM logs show (see below), and >> assuming that the numbers are not scaled up for larger HDs, I suspect >> that you may have between ~80 and ~120 reallocated sectors. >> >> ID Attribute Description Threshold Value Worst Data >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 05 Reallocated Sector Count 36 100 100 34 >> >> Attribute ID Threshold Value Worst Raw Type >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Reallocated Sector Count 5 36 98 98 000000000079h EC >> Reallocated Sectors: 121 >> >> Reallocated Sector Count 5 36 97 97 00000000007Fh EC >> Reallocated Sectors: 127 >> >> - Franc Zabkar >> -- >> Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email. > > OK, i've previously written values.. > > Here is Everest ones about "reallocated sectors count": > > ID Attribute Description Threshold Value Worst Data Status > 05 Reallocated Sector Count 36 98 98 98 OK: Value is normal > I also check with ActiveSMART saying the raw value is: 98 Then you have 98 reallocated sectors, the drive is dying. > Arno said it counts down, He didnt say that about the raw value. > i had 2 bad-sectors at the past which i fixed using Seatools. > Since that, i haven't had any bad-blocks shown > in chkdsk or Seatools full surface scan. > So what does that values mean? The last number, 98, is the number of reallocated sectors. > Is there new thing to concern? Yes, the drive is dying.
From: Rod Speed on 12 Nov 2007 14:26 kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkonen85(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 12, 1:09 pm, Franc Zabkar <fzab...(a)iinternode.on.net> wrote: >> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 10:55:15 -0800, kimiraikkonen >> <kimiraikkone...(a)gmail.com> put finger to keyboard and composed: >> >>> 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 >> >> You need to monitor the raw value. I use a DOS utility named SmartUDM >> for this purpose. For Windows there is Everest Home Edition. >> >> My Seagate 13GB HD has been steadily growing defects. Two years ago >> they were at 34, today I have 130. During the past week about 10 bad >> sectors were added. I have now backed up and retired the drive. >> >> Based on what my Everest and SmartUDM logs show (see below), and >> assuming that the numbers are not scaled up for larger HDs, I suspect >> that you may have between ~80 and ~120 reallocated sectors. >> >> ID Attribute Description Threshold Value Worst Data >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 05 Reallocated Sector Count 36 100 100 34 >> >> Attribute ID Threshold Value Worst Raw Type >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Reallocated Sector Count 5 36 98 98 000000000079h EC >> Reallocated Sectors: 121 >> >> Reallocated Sector Count 5 36 97 97 00000000007Fh EC >> Reallocated Sectors: 127 >> >> - Franc Zabkar >> -- >> Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email. > > OK, i've previously written values.. > > Here is Everest ones about "reallocated sectors count": > > ID Attribute Description Threshold Value Worst > Data Status > 05 Reallocated Sector Count 36 98 98 > 98 OK: Value is normal > I also check with ActiveSMART saying the raw value is: 98 > Arno said it counts down, No he didnt about the raw value. > i had 2 bad-sectors at the past which i fixed using Seatools. > Since that, i haven't had any bad-blocks shown in chkdsk or > Seatools full surface scan. Because the bads have been reallocated away. > So what does that values mean? > ID Attribute Description Threshold Value Worst Data Status > 05 Reallocated Sector Count 36 98 98 98 OK: Value is normal That you have 98 reallocated sectors. > It also says status is OK. Ignore that. > Which result will i rely on? Manufacturer's full/surface scan utility or SMART? The raw SMART value, that indicates that the drive is dying. > There are some users trying to help, but i want a explict explanation. The high raw value shows that the drive is reallocating lots of bad sectors and that means that the drive is dying. It shouldnt be seeing so many reallocated sectors. > This topic is a bit messed up, that's why i haven't received an "exact" and "satisfactory" response. The other problem is that your english is a bit fractured and it isnt always easy to understand exactly what you are asking at times. > Please interpret my values, if you are sure. Yes, I am sure. > Wrong information makes annoying as you know :( And thats another rather fractured sentence in english, tho the meaning is clear in that case. > Thanks for the care...
From: Franc Zabkar on 12 Nov 2007 14:30 On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 06:43:08 -0800, kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkonen85(a)gmail.com> put finger to keyboard and composed: >Here is Everest ones about "reallocated sectors count": > >ID Attribute Description Threshold Value Worst >Data Status >05 Reallocated Sector Count 36 98 98 >98 OK: Value is normal > >I also check with ActiveSMART saying the raw value is: 98 > >Arno said it counts down, i had 2 bad-sectors at the past which i >fixed using Seatools. Since that, i haven't had any bad-blocks shown >in chkdsk or Seatools full surface scan. > >So what does that values mean? >ID Attribute Description Threshold Value Worst >Data Status >05 Reallocated Sector Count 36 98 98 >98 OK: Value is normal > >SmartUDM from Dos: Raw: 000000000062h > reallocated sectors: 98 (but how >reliable is it?) 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. - Franc Zabkar -- Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
From: kimiraikkonen on 12 Nov 2007 15:23
On Nov 12, 9:17 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....(a)gmail.com> wrote: > kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkone...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > 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_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. Today, again i applied Seatools full scan (long test) and passed successfully. Really weird. |