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 13 Nov 2007 05:03 Arno, Rod (no quatiton mark :-) ), Franc, Thanks you for following this topic and keeping replying. So, as overall when you looked at SMART values, i want to summarize what i got in that topic? 1- There are 98 reallocated bad sectors but there's no unallocated as a threat of data loss? Right? 2-ID Attribute Description Threshold Value Worst Data Status 05 Reallocated Sector Count 36 98 98 98 OK: Value is normal That means there are 98 reallocated sectors, but still couldn't completely understand for Seagate what "threshold - 36" means? It shouldn't be percantage, does it mean that i'm allowed to allocate 100-36 = 64 bad ones? (frustrating) 3- The other SMART values are fine as stated by many programs. Right? 4- A "reallocated sector count" shows the amount of reallocated / replaced sectors silently while the drive is operating. When the drive has a problem with sector, first it tries to replace that sectors with a "spare" sector thus a "reallocated sector" statistic is updated. If the sector is completely unreadable or unreallocatable, you see it as "bad" marked in surface scan tools like Seatools. Did i understand correct? 5- Though a drive has "reallocated sectors", if it can read every data (checking with several disk reading utilites), it doesn't have a unallocatable / unfixable bad sectos which are the reasons of real data loss. Those 5 questions are the ones i see answered them clearly. Again, thank you for following and helping. Very helpful... Regards.
From: Folkert Rienstra on 13 Nov 2007 12:29 Arno Wagner wrote in news:5psau8FscubaU5(a)mid.individual.net > Previously Franc Zabkar <fzabkar(a)iinternode.on.net> wrote: > > On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 10:55:15 -0800, kimiraikkonen 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.... Right Babblebot, far better to trust a drive that has never exhibited any signs but will die tomorrow just a split second after you hit the Power button. > > Arno
From: Folkert Rienstra on 13 Nov 2007 12:30 Arno Wagner wrote in news:5psb47FscubaU6(a)mid.individual.net > Previously Franc Zabkar <fzabkar(a)iinternode.on.net> wrote: > > On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 06:43:08 -0800, kimiraikkonen 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. > > That looks very likely to me too now. Quite confusing, I agree. You are a babblebot with a cooked brain. Nothing is confusing to you. > > 98 bad sectors is a high number. If it does not increase, the > drive may still be fine (there are those that discard a drive > at the first reallocated secotr, I prefer RAID1 and backups). > > Arno
From: Folkert Rienstra on 13 Nov 2007 12:31 Franc Zabkar wrote in news:iu7ij3to4tgjk8ll1kutb4a1vr8d5cp8sh(a)4ax.com > On 13 Nov 2007 00:57:43 GMT, Arno Wagner <me(a)privacy.net> put finger > to keyboard and composed: > > > Previously Franc Zabkar <fzabkar(a)iinternode.on.net> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > That looks very likely to me too now. Quite confusing, I agree. You're Babblebot. You can't do anything about it. It's in your DNA. > > > > 98 bad sectors is a high number. If it does not increase, the > > drive may still be fine (there are those that discard a drive > > at the first reallocated secotr, I prefer RAID1 and backups). > > > > Arno > > I've been living with a dying drive for at least two years. This last > week was the last straw, though. > > I find that Seagate's threshold value of 36 is somewhat optimistic. If > I have correctly interpreted my logs, then each percentage (?) point > corresponds to a loss of approximately 40 sectors. So a value of 36 > represents a loss of 64 points, which in turn corresponds to about > 2560 reallocated sectors. Which is still a minute percentage of the number of spare sectors available. > > - Franc Zabkar
From: Folkert Rienstra on 13 Nov 2007 12:31
Arno Wagner wrote in news:5pt2ceFskbkpU2(a)mid.individual.net > Previously Franc Zabkar <fzabkar(a)iinternode.on.net> wrote: > > On 13 Nov 2007 00:57:43 GMT, Arno Wagner <me(a)privacy.net> put finger > > to keyboard and composed: > > > > Previously Franc Zabkar <fzabkar(a)iinternode.on.net> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > > > That looks very likely to me too now. Quite confusing, I agree. > > > > > > 98 bad sectors is a high number. If it does not increase, the > > > drive may still be fine (there are those that discard a drive > > > at the first reallocated secotr, I prefer RAID1 and backups). > > > > > > Arno > > > I've been living with a dying drive for at least two years. > > Gutsy! ;-) > > > This last week was the last straw, though. > > > I find that Seagate's threshold value of 36 is somewhat optimistic. If > > I have correctly interpreted my logs, then each percentage (?) point > > corresponds to a loss of approximately 40 sectors. So a value of 36 > > represents a loss of 64 points, which in turn corresponds to about > > 2560 reallocated sectors. > > Well possible. I once had a Maxtor (in a cluster of compute servers) > that was incredible slow and has about 1100 reallocated sectors. > This thing was dying pretty fast (had been dropped and it > took some weeks to develop problems). The thing was that the > SMART status still read good, i.e. above the threshold. > At that time I started monitoring the raw reallocated sector > count and installed email notification on changes of that.. > > Some vendors are extremely optimisticc with regard to SMART > thresholds. Kind of makes the SMART status alone pretty > worthless. No wonder so many people are asking in this group > for help interpreting SMART data. Pity about the moronic answers they get. > > Arno |