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 12 Nov 2007 14:12 Arno Wagner wrote in news:5pprseFslksrU1(a)mid.individual.net > 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. And how easily one can be fooled. > > 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. Utter useless nonsense again. > Unless it > ist the "raw" value, then it means 98 defective and reallocated secors. Yup, and both values are in that line. > That would be a lot. Not really. > 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. More nonsense. > > > 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. Ooh, that makes somuch sense. > Of course in the raw form, it can be different, Oh really. > but the threshold and ordinary attibute display is cooked. Like your brains, babblebot? > Let me give you an example from one of my disks: And nicely readable it is, babblebot. > > 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, They are normalized values, babblebot. It's your brain that is cooked. > and lower is always worse. Right, babblebot, higher temperature is better, makes sense what. > "Raw_Value" is the register value, Like the other values are not, babblebot. > and here hogher is indeed worse for reallocated sector count. > Note that this disk has zero reallocated sectors. > > Arno
From: Rod Speed on 12 Nov 2007 16:43 kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkonen85(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Sometimes thats hard because its not clear what you were trying to say/ask. > Today, again i applied Seatools full scan (long test) and passed successfully. Really weird. Nope, its saying that those reallocated bad sectors have been reallocated, so currenty the drive is fine. But since there are so many reallocated sectors, it is certainly dying and wont be fine for long. Post the full SMART report, not just that one line.
From: kimiraikkonen on 12 Nov 2007 17:01 "Rod", here is full SMART report from Everest, it say everyvalue is normal. Meanwhile, this reallocated sectors may remain from past and i don't want to conclude unless they dramatically continue to populate. ID Attribute Description Threshold Value Worst Data Status 01 Raw Read Error Rate 34 64 53 171388353 OK: Value is normal 03 Spin Up Time 0 70 70 0 OK: Always passes 04 Start/Stop Count 20 100 100 692 OK: Value is normal 05 Reallocated Sector Count 36 98 98 98 OK: Value is normal 07 Seek Error Rate 30 81 60 158600840 OK: Value is normal 09 Power-On Time Count 0 93 93 6581 OK: Always passes 0A Spin Retry Count 97 100 100 0 OK: Value is normal 0C Power Cycle Count 20 98 98 2590 OK: Value is normal C2 Temperature 0 28 51 28 OK: Always passes C3 Hardware ECC Recovered 0 64 53 171388353 OK: Always passes C5 Current Pending Sector Count 0 100 100 0 OK: Always passes C6 Off-Line Uncorrectable Sector Count 0 100 100 0 OK: Always passes C7 Ultra ATA CRC Error Rate 0 200 200 0 OK: Always passes C8 Write Error Rate 0 100 253 0 OK: Always passes CA TA Increase Count 0 100 253 0 OK: Always passes Thanks.
From: Arno Wagner on 12 Nov 2007 19:52 Previously 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" ? For reallocated sectors, yes! Especially since the raw value is usually a direct count. (Except for some notepook HDD I have, which seems to count down from 4096000000....) > 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... The above is from the smartmontools, which have been ported to Windows as well. Commandline only, but easily the best functionality. http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net/ Arno
From: Arno Wagner on 12 Nov 2007 19:54
Previously Franc Zabkar <fzabkar(a)iinternode.on.net> wrote: > On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 10:55:15 -0800, kimiraikkonen > <kimiraikkonen85(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. Increase in bad sectors is a very bad sign. > 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. That would be bad. I had one Maxtor HDD that got about this high a number in one burst and worked perfectly for another 3 years. But it was in a RAID and I would not trust a disk with this many bad sectors.... Arno |