Need help with "reallocated sector count"?

On 11 Kas m, 22:55, Arno Wagner <m....RemoveThis@privacy.net> wrote:
> Previously kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkone....RemoveThis@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?

Very thanks.
 >> Stay informed about: Need help with "reallocated sector count"? 

On 11 Kas m, 22:55, Arno Wagner <m... RemoveThis @privacy.net> wrote:
> Previously kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkone... RemoveThis @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.
 >> Stay informed about: Need help with "reallocated sector count"? 

On 11 Kas m, 22:55, Arno Wagner <m... RemoveThis @privacy.net> wrote:
> Previously kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkone... RemoveThis @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.
 >> Stay informed about: Need help with "reallocated sector count"? 

kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkonen85.RemoveThis@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.
 >> Stay informed about: Need help with "reallocated sector count"? 

Previously kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkonen85.RemoveThis@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
 >> Stay informed about: Need help with "reallocated sector count"? 

On Nov 12, 4:25 am, Arno Wagner <m....DeleteThis@privacy.net> wrote:
> Previously kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkone....DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 11 Kas m, 22:55, Arno Wagner <m....DeleteThis@privacy.net> wrote:
> >> Previously kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkone....DeleteThis@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_Report..._Techno

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
 >> Stay informed about: Need help with "reallocated sector count"? 

> Previously kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkone....RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 11 Kas m, 22:55, Arno Wagner <m....RemoveThis@privacy.net> wrote:
> >> Previously kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkone....RemoveThis@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.

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> > 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" ? However i
found a software called "ActiveSMART" and it has a section about "show
raw values", when i look there the raw value for "reallocated sectors
count" is "98".

So what does it mean?

> 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
 >> Stay informed about: Need help with "reallocated sector count"? 

Previously kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkonen85.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11 Kas m, 22:55, Arno Wagner <m....DeleteThis@privacy.net> wrote:
>> Previously kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkone....DeleteThis@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
 >> Stay informed about: Need help with "reallocated sector count"? 

kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkonen85.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11 Kas m, 21:47, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.....TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
>> kimiraikkonen <kimiraikkone....TakeThisOut@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.
 >> Stay informed about: Need help with "reallocated sector count"? 

On Nov 12, 1:09 pm, Franc Zabkar <fzab....TakeThisOut@iinternode.on.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 10:55:15 -0800, kimiraikkonen
> <kimiraikkone....TakeThisOut@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, 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?

Is there new thing to concern?

Thanks.
 >> Stay informed about: Need help with "reallocated sector count"? 

On Nov 12, 1:09 pm, Franc Zabkar <fzab....TakeThisOut@iinternode.on.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 10:55:15 -0800, kimiraikkonen
> <kimiraikkone....TakeThisOut@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, 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

It also says status is OK. Which result will i rely on? Manufacturer's
full/surface scan utility or SMART?

There are some users trying to help, but i want a explict explanation.
This topic is a bit messed up, that's why i haven't received an
"exact" and "satisfactory" response.

Please interpret my values, if you are sure. Wrong information makes
annoying as you know

Thanks for the care...
 >> Stay informed about: Need help with "reallocated sector count"? 

On Nov 12, 1:09 pm, Franc Zabkar <fzab....RemoveThis@iinternode.on.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 10:55:15 -0800, kimiraikkonen
> <kimiraikkone....RemoveThis@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, 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?)

It also says status is OK. Which result will i rely on? Manufacturer's
full/surface scan utility or SMART?

There are some users trying to help, but i want a explict explanation.
This topic is a bit messed up, that's why i haven't received an
"exact" and "satisfactory" response.

Please interpret my values, if you are sure. Wrong information makes
annoying as you know

Thanks for the care...
 >> Stay informed about: Need help with "reallocated sector count"? 

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 10:55:15 -0800, kimiraikkonen
<kimiraikkonen85.RemoveThis@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.
 >> Stay informed about: Need help with "reallocated sector count"?