Timeline for REALLOCATED SECTOR COUNT 4948. Request for advice
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 17 at 0:37 | comment | added | r2d3 | harrymc, please provide a source that proves a linear relationship between the attribute value and the number of reallocated sectors - a relationship that you assume. The relationsship can be log-related. There is no rule how to derive the attribute value from the raw data. I would appreciate if you could prove me wrong! Thank you. | |
| Mar 17 at 0:33 | comment | added | r2d3 | This discussion clearly outlines how much the subject of bad sectors is opinion-based. Furthermore any hints based on a personal use profile do not add value for future readers. | |
| Mar 14 at 9:16 | comment | added | harrymc | You're likely right. The disk is now old, but its specs were once impressive. | |
| Mar 14 at 7:25 | comment | added | KkyleReese | I believe using it for storing media and streaming over Plex is better of the two. | |
| Mar 14 at 5:47 | comment | added | harrymc | @KkyleReese: Writing dynamically to the disk is what will accelerate degradation. Choose the option that means less writing and less having the disk under power. Keep an eye on the above parameters, and if they don't degrade the disk may still serve for years. But if they start degrading, get rid of it. | |
| Mar 14 at 5:15 | comment | added | KkyleReese | Thanks to both of you for sharing valuable insight. What do you suggest what can be the best possible use case out of the two to get maximum life 1. Using it for storing and streaming 4K BluRay Rips OR 2. Using it as an expansion drive for Xbox games. Out of these two cases which can cause degradation faster. I won’t be using this drive for storing irreplaceable personal stuff and just want to put it for some use till it dies for good | |
| Mar 13 at 14:46 | comment | added | Joep van Steen | research.google/pubs/… | |
| Mar 13 at 14:45 | comment | added | harrymc | @JoepvanSteen: Thanks - I would like to see this link, but my comment wasn't addressed at you. Most consumer disks have 10-20% of this impressive number of spare sectors, and we don't know over how many years the remapped sectors have been developing. What I tried to say is that each disk is different, so has to be judged in context, not to automatically advise to junk a disk that may still see useful usage, but this kind of advice is always downvoted here (from experience). | |
| Mar 13 at 14:31 | comment | added | Joep van Steen | A down-voter is not by definition a "mis-understander". One reason of drives having a large number of spare sectors is so they can be spread over the drive so that reallocations can be done relatively local to the sector to be reallocated. This is one of the conclusions of a large scale study done by Google: "After their first reallocation, drives are over 14 times more likely to fail within 60 days than drives without reallocation counts, making the critical threshold for this parameter also one.". FWIW I retracted my downvote yesterday. | |
| Mar 13 at 13:52 | comment | added | harrymc | To the misunderstanding downvoters: With the enormous number of 10-15,000 spare sectors, and with a firmware that hasn't let a single weak sector become a hard error by early remapping, this is a high-quality disk that was made to last. It has used up exactly 23% of its spare sectors. It's not young, but may still serve for years with a bit of luck, although some caution is required given its age. What's missing is the element of time, to see if these SMART attributes are stable and the disk can still serve, or if not and then the disk has to be replaced now. | |
| Mar 12 at 22:09 | history | edited | harrymc | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 71 characters in body
|
| Mar 12 at 22:09 | comment | added | Joep van Steen | Ah, that would explain a lot. | |
| Mar 12 at 22:07 | comment | added | harrymc | @JoepvanSteen: We understand the scale differently. My 9 is your 2 apparently. I'll clarify it in my answer. | |
| Mar 12 at 21:59 | comment | added | Joep van Steen | No it does not mean sectors were readable after retries, most reallocations don't happen on read. Scale was 1(very bad) - 10 (flawless), this drive is nowhere near 10. | |
| Mar 12 at 21:47 | comment | added | harrymc | @JoepvanSteen: Remapping is an accomplishment, because it means that these sectors were readable after some retries. With 4948 unreadable sectors the disk is dead. My 9 for the badness level means untrustworthy but not yet dead. Would you give it a much better "badness note"? | |
| Mar 12 at 21:35 | comment | added | Joep van Steen | Firmware managing to reallocate sectors sounds like an accomplishment but of course it's a simple remapping operation. With regards to BB attribute, one could argue it's bad translation, Seagate self call BB attribute BB "Reported Uncorrectables". Reported! I have seen examples of the BB attribute reporting zero while SMART logs actually showed > zero values (HDDGuru forums). 4948 reallocations and then giving a hard drive 9 out of 10 health rating is ridiculous. | |
| Mar 12 at 19:21 | history | answered | harrymc | CC BY-SA 4.0 |