Seagate ST3500418AS, showing Reallocated Sectors

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Frank Williams, Mar 19, 2010.

  1. Hard Disk Sentinel shows it as 95% good, 103 days of use.

    Now has 5 Reallocated Sectors

    The last one No.4 was in November 2009 and now one today..

    But I did get a Blue Screen what trying to transfer XP Dater using the WIN 7
    Windows Easy Transfer tool, did show up as a USB problem, with copying to
    this drive, but that was the day before, I then decided to use a 4G USB stick
    and all was OK, 2.4G of data transferred.

    Drive is about 9 months old and SMART no longer lists any thresholds for that
    drive..


    Do I need to worry and what is the limit given to get a replacement..?

    Thanks
     
    Frank Williams, Mar 19, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Frank Williams

    Arno Guest

    In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Frank Williams <> wrote:


    > Hard Disk Sentinel shows it as 95% good, 103 days of use.


    > Now has 5 Reallocated Sectors


    > The last one No.4 was in November 2009 and now one today..


    Not a lot. Probably perfectly healty drive. Keep in mind that
    a reallocated sector is a successful error recovery.

    > But I did get a Blue Screen what trying to transfer XP Dater using
    > the WIN 7 > Windows Easy Transfer tool, did show up as a USB problem,
    > with copying to this drive, but that was the day before, I then
    > decided to use a 4G USB stick and all was OK, 2.4G of data
    > transferred.


    I would suspect that it was actually an USB problem.

    > Drive is about 9 months old and SMART no longer lists any
    > thresholds for that drive..


    What do you mean?

    > Do I need to worry and what is the limit given to get a replacement..?


    Not yet. Keep an eye on the reallocated sectors, but 5 is fine,
    especially if this is an external drive. If the number of reallocated
    sectors is slowly increasing (say <= 1/Month), the drive is likely
    fine. If pending sectors show up or you get larger burtst in
    reallocated sectors (say >10 two or three times), then there likely is
    a problem and you may want to look for a replacement or identify the
    problem.

    You may want to look into that USB error though, maybe the cable is
    bad. It is also possible that the externel PSU of the drive has a bit
    of a problem, which cpuld cause both the USB error and the reallocated
    sectors.

    This is a bit of a black art, but if the drive allways reallocates
    successfully (reallocated but no pending sectors), then there
    is no data loss and it may well be a problem with the operating
    environment and not the drive itself.

    Arno

    --
    Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email:
    GnuPG: ID: 1E25338F FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
    ----
    Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans
     
    Arno, Mar 19, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Frank Williams

    Rod Speed Guest

    Frank Williams wrote:

    > Hard Disk Sentinel shows it as 95% good, 103 days of use.


    Its never got that stuff right.

    > Now has 5 Reallocated Sectors


    > The last one No.4 was in November 2009 and now one today..


    Its clearly dying.

    > But I did get a Blue Screen what trying to transfer XP Dater using
    > the WIN 7 Windows Easy Transfer tool, did show up as a USB problem,
    > with copying to this drive, but that was the day before, I then decided
    > to use a 4G USB stick and all was OK, 2.4G of data transferred.


    Likely just a symptom of the dying drive.

    > Drive is about 9 months old and SMART no longer lists any thresholds for that drive..


    > Do I need to worry


    Yes, its dying.

    > and what is the limit given to get a replacement..?


    There isnt one.
     
    Rod Speed, Mar 19, 2010
    #3
  4. Frank Williams

    Rod Speed Guest

    Thats all just plain wrong. It shouldnt be producing new reallocated sectors.

    Arno wrote:
    > In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Frank Williams
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Hard Disk Sentinel shows it as 95% good, 103 days of use.

    >
    >> Now has 5 Reallocated Sectors

    >
    >> The last one No.4 was in November 2009 and now one today..

    >
    > Not a lot. Probably perfectly healty drive. Keep in mind that
    > a reallocated sector is a successful error recovery.
    >
    >> But I did get a Blue Screen what trying to transfer XP Dater using
    >> the WIN 7 > Windows Easy Transfer tool, did show up as a USB problem,
    >> with copying to this drive, but that was the day before, I then
    >> decided to use a 4G USB stick and all was OK, 2.4G of data
    >> transferred.

    >
    > I would suspect that it was actually an USB problem.
    >
    >> Drive is about 9 months old and SMART no longer lists any
    >> thresholds for that drive..

    >
    > What do you mean?
    >
    >> Do I need to worry and what is the limit given to get a
    >> replacement..?

    >
    > Not yet. Keep an eye on the reallocated sectors, but 5 is fine,
    > especially if this is an external drive. If the number of reallocated
    > sectors is slowly increasing (say <= 1/Month), the drive is likely
    > fine. If pending sectors show up or you get larger burtst in
    > reallocated sectors (say >10 two or three times), then there likely is
    > a problem and you may want to look for a replacement or identify the
    > problem.
    >
    > You may want to look into that USB error though, maybe the cable is
    > bad. It is also possible that the externel PSU of the drive has a bit
    > of a problem, which cpuld cause both the USB error and the reallocated
    > sectors.
    >
    > This is a bit of a black art, but if the drive allways reallocates
    > successfully (reallocated but no pending sectors), then there
    > is no data loss and it may well be a problem with the operating
    > environment and not the drive itself.
    >
    > Arno
     
    Rod Speed, Mar 19, 2010
    #4
  5. Frank Williams

    Dave Doe Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    >
    > Hard Disk Sentinel shows it as 95% good, 103 days of use.
    >
    > Now has 5 Reallocated Sectors
    >
    > The last one No.4 was in November 2009 and now one today..
    >
    > But I did get a Blue Screen what trying to transfer XP Dater using the WIN 7
    > Windows Easy Transfer tool, did show up as a USB problem, with copying to
    > this drive, but that was the day before, I then decided to use a 4G USB stick
    > and all was OK, 2.4G of data transferred.
    >
    > Drive is about 9 months old and SMART no longer lists any thresholds for that
    > drive..


    What do you mean by that? And is it relevant? You just want to know if
    SMART is reporting the drive as failed in some way.
    >
    > Do I need to worry and what is the limit given to get a replacement..?



    Re 5 reallocated errors - who did that? - the OS? or the disk (and
    you've seen in in SMART)?

    Point being, no modern HDD should have any failures from the OS's
    perspective. If you start getting bad sectors (as reported by chkdsk
    and the like), the drive is fuked. All modern drives have internal
    error correction, and if that "overflows" - and the OS has to deal with
    it - as said, the drive is fuked. Get it replaced. *Particularly* if
    you are getting more and more bad sectors - it's a time bomb.

    --
    Duncan.
     
    Dave Doe, Mar 19, 2010
    #5
  6. On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 16:41:53 +1300, Dave Doe <> wrote:

    >In article <>,
    > says...
    >>
    >> Hard Disk Sentinel shows it as 95% good, 103 days of use.
    >>
    >> Now has 5 Reallocated Sectors
    >>
    >> The last one No.4 was in November 2009 and now one today..
    >>
    >> But I did get a Blue Screen what trying to transfer XP Dater using the WIN 7
    >> Windows Easy Transfer tool, did show up as a USB problem, with copying to
    >> this drive, but that was the day before, I then decided to use a 4G USB stick
    >> and all was OK, 2.4G of data transferred.
    >>
    >> Drive is about 9 months old and SMART no longer lists any thresholds for that
    >> drive..

    >
    >What do you mean by that? And is it relevant? You just want to know if
    >SMART is reporting the drive as failed in some way.
    >>
    >> Do I need to worry and what is the limit given to get a replacement..?

    >
    >
    >Re 5 reallocated errors - who did that? - the OS? or the disk (and
    >you've seen in in SMART)?
    >
    >Point being, no modern HDD should have any failures from the OS's
    >perspective. If you start getting bad sectors (as reported by chkdsk
    >and the like), the drive is fuked. All modern drives have internal
    >error correction, and if that "overflows" - and the OS has to deal with
    >it - as said, the drive is fuked. Get it replaced. *Particularly* if
    >you are getting more and more bad sectors - it's a time bomb.




    Its NOT Bad Sectors its Reallocated Sectors, if you scan the drive there are
    No bad Sectors I never ever use DOS chkdsk as its very buggy and can kill
    hard drives.

    The SMART Data no longer lists any thresholds for that drive but does with
    all the others, that's using Hard Disk Sentinel, must be a Smart Bug or a Hard
    Disk Sentinel one.


    On the Other Ext Seagate it list 36 for the Threshold Reallocated Sectors


    The problem is that most SMART monitors do not work on USB drives.
     
    Frank Williams, Mar 19, 2010
    #6
  7. On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 13:16:11 +1100, "Rod Speed" <>
    wrote:

    >Frank Williams wrote:
    >
    >> Hard Disk Sentinel shows it as 95% good, 103 days of use.

    >
    >Its never got that stuff right.
    >
    >> Now has 5 Reallocated Sectors

    >
    >> The last one No.4 was in November 2009 and now one today..

    >
    >Its clearly dying.
    >
    >> But I did get a Blue Screen what trying to transfer XP Dater using
    >> the WIN 7 Windows Easy Transfer tool, did show up as a USB problem,
    >> with copying to this drive, but that was the day before, I then decided
    >> to use a 4G USB stick and all was OK, 2.4G of data transferred.

    >
    >Likely just a symptom of the dying drive.
    >
    >> Drive is about 9 months old and SMART no longer lists any thresholds for that drive..

    >
    >> Do I need to worry

    >
    >Yes, its dying.
    >
    >> and what is the limit given to get a replacement..?

    >
    >There isnt one.
    >
    >




    Your advise is 500% total Rubbish you know less than a Dead Rat, your advise
    in the pass has caused me to loose a drive with your untested suggestions.


    Puts me in you Kill file as your Name makes me puke..
     
    Frank Williams, Mar 19, 2010
    #7
  8. Frank Williams

    eyes Guest

    On 19/03/10 13:47, Frank Williams wrote:
    >
    >
    > Hard Disk Sentinel shows it as 95% good, 103 days of use.
    >
    > Now has 5 Reallocated Sectors
    >
    > The last one No.4 was in November 2009 and now one today..
    >
    > But I did get a Blue Screen what trying to transfer XP Dater using the WIN 7
    > Windows Easy Transfer tool, did show up as a USB problem, with copying to
    > this drive, but that was the day before, I then decided to use a 4G USB stick
    > and all was OK, 2.4G of data transferred.
    >
    > Drive is about 9 months old and SMART no longer lists any thresholds for that
    > drive..
    >
    >
    > Do I need to worry and what is the limit given to get a replacement..?
    >
    > Thanks
    >


    Its a tough one. Most vendors only accept returns if a manufacturer's
    drive test says it is failing (which is usually a SMART threshold
    check). I'm not sure that a count of 5 would be enough.

    Keep an eye on it, but to be fair, you should keep an eye on all of your
    drives.. you never know when they are about to fail.

    Anecdotal evidence:

    1. I have a 200GB drive with around 20 reallocated sectors. It got them
    near the beginning of its life and hasn't changed after 5+ years of use.
    2. I have 2 Seagate 1.5TB drives. These were purchased 1 year ago, and
    currently show 70 and 107 reallocated sectors. Seatools says they are
    still okay. I'm not sure I feel the same - although I guess these big
    drives have a lot of sectors, so those counts are a very small
    percentage of the total.
     
    eyes, Mar 19, 2010
    #8
  9. Frank Williams

    Rod Speed Guest

    Frank Williams wrote:
    > On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 13:16:11 +1100, "Rod Speed"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Frank Williams wrote:
    >>
    >>> Hard Disk Sentinel shows it as 95% good, 103 days of use.

    >>
    >> Its never got that stuff right.
    >>
    >>> Now has 5 Reallocated Sectors

    >>
    >>> The last one No.4 was in November 2009 and now one today..

    >>
    >> Its clearly dying.
    >>
    >>> But I did get a Blue Screen what trying to transfer XP Dater using
    >>> the WIN 7 Windows Easy Transfer tool, did show up as a USB problem,
    >>> with copying to this drive, but that was the day before, I then
    >>> decided
    >>> to use a 4G USB stick and all was OK, 2.4G of data transferred.

    >>
    >> Likely just a symptom of the dying drive.
    >>
    >>> Drive is about 9 months old and SMART no longer lists any
    >>> thresholds for that drive..

    >>
    >>> Do I need to worry

    >>
    >> Yes, its dying.
    >>
    >>> and what is the limit given to get a replacement..?

    >>
    >> There isnt one.
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    >
    > Your advise is 500% total Rubbish you know less than a Dead Rat,


    This is the clown that cant even work out the significance of new reallocated sectors...

    > your advise in the pass has caused me to loose a drive with your untested suggestions.


    Another lie.

    > Puts me in you Kill file


    I'm not childish enough to use one.

    > as your Name makes me puke..


    Your problem, as always.
     
    Rod Speed, Mar 19, 2010
    #9
  10. Frank Williams

    Rod Speed Guest

    eyes wrote:
    > On 19/03/10 13:47, Frank Williams wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> Hard Disk Sentinel shows it as 95% good, 103 days of use.
    >>
    >> Now has 5 Reallocated Sectors
    >>
    >> The last one No.4 was in November 2009 and now one today..
    >>
    >> But I did get a Blue Screen what trying to transfer XP Dater using
    >> the WIN 7 Windows Easy Transfer tool, did show up as a USB problem, with copying to this drive, but that was the day
    >> before, I then
    >> decided to use a 4G USB stick and all was OK, 2.4G of data
    >> transferred. Drive is about 9 months old and SMART no longer lists any thresholds
    >> for that drive..
    >>
    >>
    >> Do I need to worry and what is the limit given to get a
    >> replacement..? Thanks
    >>

    >
    > Its a tough one. Most vendors only accept returns if a manufacturer's
    > drive test says it is failing (which is usually a SMART threshold
    > check). I'm not sure that a count of 5 would be enough.
    >
    > Keep an eye on it, but to be fair, you should keep an eye on all of
    > your drives.. you never know when they are about to fail.
    >
    > Anecdotal evidence:
    >
    > 1. I have a 200GB drive with around 20 reallocated sectors. It got
    > them near the beginning of its life and hasn't changed after 5+ years
    > of use. 2. I have 2 Seagate 1.5TB drives. These were purchased 1 year ago, and
    > currently show 70 and 107 reallocated sectors. Seatools says they are
    > still okay. I'm not sure I feel the same - although I guess these big
    > drives have a lot of sectors, so those counts are a very small
    > percentage of the total.


    Those are obscene numbers of reallocated sectors.

    That isnt necessarily due to the drive dying tho, when you have so
    many on multiple drives, its much more likely to be due to something
    external to the drive like the temperature or the power supply etc.
     
    Rod Speed, Mar 19, 2010
    #10
  11. Frank Williams

    Dave Doe Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    >
    > On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 16:41:53 +1300, Dave Doe <> wrote:
    >
    > >In article <>,
    > > says...
    > >>
    > >> Hard Disk Sentinel shows it as 95% good, 103 days of use.
    > >>
    > >> Now has 5 Reallocated Sectors
    > >>
    > >> The last one No.4 was in November 2009 and now one today..
    > >>
    > >> But I did get a Blue Screen what trying to transfer XP Dater using the WIN 7
    > >> Windows Easy Transfer tool, did show up as a USB problem, with copying to
    > >> this drive, but that was the day before, I then decided to use a 4G USB stick
    > >> and all was OK, 2.4G of data transferred.
    > >>
    > >> Drive is about 9 months old and SMART no longer lists any thresholds for that
    > >> drive..

    > >
    > >What do you mean by that? And is it relevant? You just want to know if
    > >SMART is reporting the drive as failed in some way.
    > >>
    > >> Do I need to worry and what is the limit given to get a replacement..?

    > >
    > >
    > >Re 5 reallocated errors - who did that? - the OS? or the disk (and
    > >you've seen in in SMART)?
    > >
    > >Point being, no modern HDD should have any failures from the OS's
    > >perspective. If you start getting bad sectors (as reported by chkdsk
    > >and the like), the drive is fuked. All modern drives have internal
    > >error correction, and if that "overflows" - and the OS has to deal with
    > >it - as said, the drive is fuked. Get it replaced. *Particularly* if
    > >you are getting more and more bad sectors - it's a time bomb.

    >
    >
    >
    > Its NOT Bad Sectors its Reallocated Sectors, if you scan the drive there are
    > No bad Sectors I never ever use DOS chkdsk as its very buggy and can kill
    > hard drives.


    Oh it's YOU Woger. Had I known, I would not have replied.


    --
    Duncan.
     
    Dave Doe, Mar 19, 2010
    #11
  12. Frank Williams

    eyes Guest

    On 19/03/10 18:21, Rod Speed wrote:
    > eyes wrote:
    >> On 19/03/10 13:47, Frank Williams wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Hard Disk Sentinel shows it as 95% good, 103 days of use.
    >>>
    >>> Now has 5 Reallocated Sectors
    >>>
    >>> The last one No.4 was in November 2009 and now one today..
    >>>
    >>> But I did get a Blue Screen what trying to transfer XP Dater using
    >>> the WIN 7 Windows Easy Transfer tool, did show up as a USB problem, with copying to this drive, but that was the day
    >>> before, I then
    >>> decided to use a 4G USB stick and all was OK, 2.4G of data
    >>> transferred. Drive is about 9 months old and SMART no longer lists any thresholds
    >>> for that drive..
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Do I need to worry and what is the limit given to get a
    >>> replacement..? Thanks
    >>>

    >>
    >> Its a tough one. Most vendors only accept returns if a manufacturer's
    >> drive test says it is failing (which is usually a SMART threshold
    >> check). I'm not sure that a count of 5 would be enough.
    >>
    >> Keep an eye on it, but to be fair, you should keep an eye on all of
    >> your drives.. you never know when they are about to fail.
    >>
    >> Anecdotal evidence:
    >>
    >> 1. I have a 200GB drive with around 20 reallocated sectors. It got
    >> them near the beginning of its life and hasn't changed after 5+ years
    >> of use. 2. I have 2 Seagate 1.5TB drives. These were purchased 1 year ago, and
    >> currently show 70 and 107 reallocated sectors. Seatools says they are
    >> still okay. I'm not sure I feel the same - although I guess these big
    >> drives have a lot of sectors, so those counts are a very small
    >> percentage of the total.

    >
    > Those are obscene numbers of reallocated sectors.


    Not sure I would call that obscene. On these drives 1 sector = 512
    bytes. 107 x 512 bytes = ~54K. 54K in 1,500,000,000K is probably not
    significant to worry about.

    >
    > That isnt necessarily due to the drive dying tho, when you have so
    > many on multiple drives, its much more likely to be due to something
    > external to the drive like the temperature or the power supply etc.
    >
    >


    Exactly, although I have had a 500GB Seagate and a Samsung 1.5TB in the
    same case. Those drives are not reporting any reallocated sectors. Of
    course that doesn't mean their firmwares handle reallocated sectors
    differently and only report in SMART when they hit an internal threshold.
     
    eyes, Mar 19, 2010
    #12
  13. Frank Williams

    Yousuf Khan Guest

    Frank Williams wrote:
    > Its NOT Bad Sectors its Reallocated Sectors, if you scan the drive there are
    > No bad Sectors I never ever use DOS chkdsk as its very buggy and can kill
    > hard drives.
    >
    > The SMART Data no longer lists any thresholds for that drive but does with
    > all the others, that's using Hard Disk Sentinel, must be a Smart Bug or a Hard
    > Disk Sentinel one.


    Yeah, that is kinda weird. Are you saying that this entire column is
    missing when you view it on HDS for this drive, but not for others? Or
    are you saying that the column is still there, but every row in it are
    zeroes?

    You might want to ask the HDS developers this question, they'll probably
    ask you to run and send their Test Report. It would be interesting to
    find out what this is about in any event.

    In the meantime, trust but verify. Use a different utility on the drive.
    Run HDD Scan, and see what it reports.

    HDDScan – free HDD test utility with USB flash and RAID support
    http://hddscan.com/

    > On the Other Ext Seagate it list 36 for the Threshold Reallocated Sectors
    >
    >
    > The problem is that most SMART monitors do not work on USB drives.



    Seagate's SeaTools seem to work on a lot of USB drives. And HDD Scan
    seems to work too. At one time, HD Sentinel was the be-all-end-all of
    USB-based SMART reporting, but there are others now.

    I still like HD Sentinel for its health and performance ranking system,
    although its weighting criteria seems to be a bit too conservative. I
    have one old 200GB IDE drive that was given 100 days to live, but that
    was almost 2 years ago. I've also now converted the drive into a SATA
    drive, and it's had no problems since. HDSent has steadily been
    increasing its health rankings since then; it's gone from a 40% health
    ranking, up to 49%, and now up to 76% and its estimated life is now 336
    days.

    Yousuf Khan
     
    Yousuf Khan, Mar 19, 2010
    #13
  14. Frank Williams

    Rod Speed Guest

    eyes wrote
    > Rod Speed wrote
    >> eyes wrote
    >>> Frank Williams wrote


    >>>> Hard Disk Sentinel shows it as 95% good, 103 days of use.


    >>>> Now has 5 Reallocated Sectors


    >>>> The last one No.4 was in November 2009 and now one today..


    >>>> But I did get a Blue Screen what trying to transfer XP Dater using
    >>>> the WIN 7 Windows Easy Transfer tool, did show up as a USB
    >>>> problem, with copying to this drive, but that was the day before,
    >>>> I then decided to use a 4G USB stick and all was OK, 2.4G of data
    >>>> transferred. Drive is about 9 months old and SMART no longer lists
    >>>> any thresholds for that drive..


    >>>> Do I need to worry and what is the limit given to get a replacement..? Thanks


    >>> Its a tough one. Most vendors only accept returns if a manufacturer's drive test says it is failing (which is
    >>> usually a SMART threshold
    >>> check). I'm not sure that a count of 5 would be enough.


    >>> Keep an eye on it, but to be fair, you should keep an eye on all of your drives.. you never know when they are about
    >>> to fail.


    >>> Anecdotal evidence:


    >>> 1. I have a 200GB drive with around 20 reallocated sectors. It got
    >>> them near the beginning of its life and hasn't changed after 5+ years of use. 2. I have 2 Seagate 1.5TB drives.
    >>> These were purchased 1
    >>> year ago, and currently show 70 and 107 reallocated sectors.


    >>> Seatools says they are still okay. I'm not sure I feel the same - although I guess these big drives have a lot of
    >>> sectors, so those counts are a very small percentage of the total.


    >> Those are obscene numbers of reallocated sectors.


    > Not sure I would call that obscene.


    They are anyway.

    > On these drives 1 sector = 512 bytes. 107 x 512 bytes = ~54K. 54K in 1,500,000,000K is probably not significant to
    > worry about.


    Wrong. You shouldnt see more than a very small number
    of reallocated sectors on any modern hard drive.

    >> That isnt necessarily due to the drive dying tho, when you have so
    >> many on multiple drives, its much more likely to be due to something
    >> external to the drive like the temperature or the power supply etc.


    > Exactly, although I have had a 500GB Seagate and a Samsung 1.5TB in
    > the same case. Those drives are not reporting any reallocated sectors.


    Particular drives can see quite different temperature regimes even when
    in the same case, most obviously with a drive that is on the end of the
    stack or one which is in the airflow from a fan on the end of the stack
    or with drives that are in the 5.25" drive bay stack in a multidrive housing.

    Bet you will find that the SMART temp is much worse with the
    drives that have those obscene numbers of reallocated sectors.

    > Of course that doesn't mean their firmwares handle reallocated sectors differently and only report in SMART when they
    > hit an internal threshold.


    Smart doesnt do it like that with reallocated sectors.
     
    Rod Speed, Mar 19, 2010
    #14
  15. Frank Williams

    Jason Guest

    "Frank Williams" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    >
    > Hard Disk Sentinel shows it as 95% good, 103 days of use.
    >
    > Now has 5 Reallocated Sectors
    >
    > The last one No.4 was in November 2009 and now one today..
    >
    > But I did get a Blue Screen what trying to transfer XP Dater using the WIN
    > 7
    > Windows Easy Transfer tool, did show up as a USB problem, with copying to
    > this drive, but that was the day before, I then decided to use a 4G USB
    > stick
    > and all was OK, 2.4G of data transferred.
    >
    > Drive is about 9 months old and SMART no longer lists any thresholds for
    > that
    > drive..
    >
    >
    > Do I need to worry and what is the limit given to get a replacement..?
    >
    > Thanks
    >

    If you're lucky you will have zero but it is just as likely that over the
    life time the odd one will turn up. I would say it gets critical when
    numbers increase rapidly especially as the drive gets older.
    A few at the beginning of a drives life are probably due to the drive
    settling in however this beginning period may be longer for a USB drive that
    is not always plugged in.
     
    Jason, Mar 19, 2010
    #15
  16. Frank Williams

    Rod Speed Guest

    Jason wrote
    > Frank Williams <> wrote


    >> Hard Disk Sentinel shows it as 95% good, 103 days of use.


    >> Now has 5 Reallocated Sectors


    >> The last one No.4 was in November 2009 and now one today..


    >> But I did get a Blue Screen what trying to transfer XP Dater using the WIN 7 Windows Easy Transfer tool, did show up
    >> as a USB problem, with copying to this drive, but that was the day before, I then decided to use a 4G USB stick and
    >> all was OK, 2.4G of data transferred.


    >> Drive is about 9 months old and SMART no longer lists any thresholds for that drive..


    >> Do I need to worry and what is the limit given to get a replacement..?


    > If you're lucky you will have zero


    You dont need to be lucky to get zero reallocated sectors, thats what most have.

    > but it is just as likely that over the life time the odd one will turn up.


    Thats wrong too.

    > I would say it gets critical when numbers increase rapidly


    Even just keeps increasing is evidence of a problem.

    > especially as the drive gets older.


    You dont actually see that much anymore.

    > A few at the beginning of a drives life are probably due to the drive settling in


    Have fun explaining the physics of that.

    > however this beginning period may be longer for a USB drive that is not always plugged in.


    Even sillier.
     
    Rod Speed, Mar 19, 2010
    #16
  17. On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 08:59:55 -0400, Yousuf Khan <>
    wrote:

    >Frank Williams wrote:
    >> Its NOT Bad Sectors its Reallocated Sectors, if you scan the drive there are
    >> No bad Sectors I never ever use DOS chkdsk as its very buggy and can kill
    >> hard drives.
    >>
    >> The SMART Data no longer lists any thresholds for that drive but does with
    >> all the others, that's using Hard Disk Sentinel, must be a Smart Bug or a Hard
    >> Disk Sentinel one.

    >
    >Yeah, that is kinda weird. Are you saying that this entire column is
    >missing when you view it on HDS for this drive, but not for others? Or
    >are you saying that the column is still there, but every row in it are
    >zeroes?




    Its fixed its self after a Reboot..


    >You might want to ask the HDS developers this question, they'll probably
    >ask you to run and send their Test Report. It would be interesting to
    >find out what this is about in any event.
    >
    >In the meantime, trust but verify. Use a different utility on the drive.
    >Run HDD Scan, and see what it reports.
    >
    >HDDScan – free HDD test utility with USB flash and RAID support
    >http://hddscan.com/
    >
    >> On the Other Ext Seagate it list 36 for the Threshold Reallocated Sectors
    >>
    >>
    >> The problem is that most SMART monitors do not work on USB drives.

    >
    >
    >Seagate's SeaTools seem to work on a lot of USB drives. And HDD Scan
    >seems to work too. At one time, HD Sentinel was the be-all-end-all of
    >USB-based SMART reporting, but there are others now.
    >
    >I still like HD Sentinel for its health and performance ranking system,
    >although its weighting criteria seems to be a bit too conservative. I
    >have one old 200GB IDE drive that was given 100 days to live, but that
    >was almost 2 years ago. I've also now converted the drive into a SATA
    >drive, and it's had no problems since. HDSent has steadily been
    >increasing its health rankings since then; it's gone from a 40% health
    >ranking, up to 49%, and now up to 76% and its estimated life is now 336
    >days.
    >
    > Yousuf Khan
     
    Frank Williams, Mar 19, 2010
    #17
  18. On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 10:18:53 +1300, "Jason" <> wrote:

    >"Frank Williams" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >>
    >>
    >> Hard Disk Sentinel shows it as 95% good, 103 days of use.
    >>
    >> Now has 5 Reallocated Sectors
    >>
    >> The last one No.4 was in November 2009 and now one today..
    >>
    >> But I did get a Blue Screen what trying to transfer XP Dater using the WIN
    >> 7
    >> Windows Easy Transfer tool, did show up as a USB problem, with copying to
    >> this drive, but that was the day before, I then decided to use a 4G USB
    >> stick
    >> and all was OK, 2.4G of data transferred.
    >>
    >> Drive is about 9 months old and SMART no longer lists any thresholds for
    >> that
    >> drive..
    >>
    >>
    >> Do I need to worry and what is the limit given to get a replacement..?
    >>
    >> Thanks
    >>

    >If you're lucky you will have zero but it is just as likely that over the
    >life time the odd one will turn up. I would say it gets critical when
    >numbers increase rapidly especially as the drive gets older.
    >A few at the beginning of a drives life are probably due to the drive
    >settling in however this beginning period may be longer for a USB drive that
    >is not always plugged in.



    As its a Back up drive its away's plugged in, but I can turn it Off and On
    with USB Safety Remove software.
     
    Frank Williams, Mar 20, 2010
    #18
  19. On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 08:59:55 -0400, Yousuf Khan <>
    wrote:

    >Frank Williams wrote:
    >> Its NOT Bad Sectors its Reallocated Sectors, if you scan the drive there are
    >> No bad Sectors I never ever use DOS chkdsk as its very buggy and can kill
    >> hard drives.
    >>
    >> The SMART Data no longer lists any thresholds for that drive but does with
    >> all the others, that's using Hard Disk Sentinel, must be a Smart Bug or a Hard
    >> Disk Sentinel one.

    >
    >Yeah, that is kinda weird. Are you saying that this entire column is
    >missing when you view it on HDS for this drive, but not for others? Or
    >are you saying that the column is still there, but every row in it are
    >zeroes?




    Its fixed its self after a Reboot..


    >You might want to ask the HDS developers this question, they'll probably
    >ask you to run and send their Test Report. It would be interesting to
    >find out what this is about in any event.
    >
    >In the meantime, trust but verify. Use a different utility on the drive.
    >Run HDD Scan, and see what it reports.
    >
    >HDDScan – free HDD test utility with USB flash and RAID support
    >http://hddscan.com/
    >
    >> On the Other Ext Seagate it list 36 for the Threshold Reallocated Sectors
    >>
    >>
    >> The problem is that most SMART monitors do not work on USB drives.

    >
    >
    >Seagate's SeaTools seem to work on a lot of USB drives. And HDD Scan
    >seems to work too. At one time, HD Sentinel was the be-all-end-all of
    >USB-based SMART reporting, but there are others now.
    >
    >I still like HD Sentinel for its health and performance ranking system,
    >although its weighting criteria seems to be a bit too conservative. I
    >have one old 200GB IDE drive that was given 100 days to live, but that
    >was almost 2 years ago. I've also now converted the drive into a SATA
    >drive, and it's had no problems since. HDSent has steadily been
    >increasing its health rankings since then; it's gone from a 40% health
    >ranking, up to 49%, and now up to 76% and its estimated life is now 336
    >days.
    >
    > Yousuf Khan
     
    Frank Williams, Mar 20, 2010
    #19
  20. Frank Williams

    Franc Zabkar Guest

    On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 17:22:39 +1300, Frank Williams
    <> put finger to keyboard and composed:

    >The SMART Data no longer lists any thresholds for that drive but does with
    >all the others, that's using Hard Disk Sentinel, must be a Smart Bug or a Hard
    >Disk Sentinel one.


    FWIW, the SMART attribute thresholds and attribute values are returned
    in separate blocks of data.

    This example is for a Seagate 320GB PATA drive:
    http://www.users.on.net/~fzabkar/Smartctl/320GB_all.log

    - Franc Zabkar
    --
    Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
     
    Franc Zabkar, Mar 20, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Emrys Davies

    Too many bad sectors

    Emrys Davies, Aug 4, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    779
    @}-}-------Rosee
    Aug 4, 2003
  2. vagabond

    Bad sectors remain after frive copy

    vagabond, Sep 12, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,592
    vagabond
    Sep 13, 2003
  3. Vic

    Bad Sectors

    Vic, May 24, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,683
    127.0.0.1
    May 25, 2004
  4. urvin
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    841
    urvin
    Apr 15, 2008
  5. Ian
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,376
Loading...

Share This Page