If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
SMART Reallocated Sector Count 269, Reallocated Event Count 20
I have an approximately 2-year Toshiba MK6476GSXN HD on my laptop (my only computer). Recently, I plugged in a faulty SD/USB converter, which caused all sorts of boot failures. Before I identified the failed converter, I thought that my HD was dying. I ran cygwin's smartmontools and compared it to results from 2 years ago. To interpret the results, I relied on google, and primarily the Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.M.A.R.T. . Higher normalized values are better, and it looks like 100 was selected as the healthy reference value for most of the attributes.
Selected columns from the smartctl output are shown at http://i58.tinypic.com/6psq3q.png, with the current output (as opposed to 2 years ago) being a hybrid of using smartctl switches -x and -a. I'm not entirely sure whether 3 of these attributes are abnormal, and these are marked with triple asterisks. The middle marked attribute (#191, G-Sense_Error_Rate) is probably not an indicator of HD health, as the errors are due to physical jarring. The remaining two attributes are #5 (Reallocated_Sector_Ct=269) and #196 (Reallocated_Event_Count=20). There is no clear consensus on whether this is bad (e.g., see http://superuser.com/questions/26842...ocate-sectors), so I intend to keep an eye on it and migrate off the HD in the long term. I really dread the time commitment to do this, as I do occassional snapshots of user content (admin & non-admin accounts) by selectively using find, tar, and zipping to disc. I haven't gotten into the habit of using my $60 Norton backup utility (again from 2 years ago) because I want to see myself that I've selected all relevant content, and only relevant content. Where such content resides tends to shift over the years. Can those with more experience with HD technology comment on this, based on the smartctl results? Am I missing something important that I haven't already noted? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
SMART Reallocated Sector Count 269, Reallocated Event Count 20
wrote
I have an approximately 2-year Toshiba MK6476GSXN HD on my laptop (my only computer). Recently, I plugged in a faulty SD/USB converter, which caused all sorts of boot failures. Before I identified the failed converter, I thought that my HD was dying. I ran cygwin's smartmontools and compared it to results from 2 years ago. To interpret the results, I relied on google, and primarily the Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.M.A.R.T. . Higher normalized values are better, and it looks like 100 was selected as the healthy reference value for most of the attributes. It's the raw values that matter. Selected columns from the smartctl output are shown at http://i58.tinypic.com/6psq3q.png, with the current output (as opposed to 2 years ago) being a hybrid of using smartctl switches -x and -a. I'm not entirely sure whether 3 of these attributes are abnormal, and these are marked with triple asterisks. Yes, the reallocated sectors is very bad and the reallocated event count is bad. The middle marked attribute (#191, G-Sense_Error_Rate) is probably not an indicator of HD health, as the errors are due to physical jarring. Yes, but may well be the cause of the reallocated sectors. The remaining two attributes are #5 (Reallocated_Sector_Ct=269) That is very bad. and #196 (Reallocated_Event_Count=20). And that is bad too. There is no clear consensus on whether this is bad Only because there is so much misinformation on the web. (e.g., see http://superuser.com/questions/26842...ocate-sectors), A few are acceptable because some drives can produce one with a mains failure, but not a laptop. 269 is an obscene number of reallocated sectors and indicate a real problem. And you certainly can not trust a drive with that many, you should be backing up what matters all the time. so I intend to keep an eye on it and migrate off the HD in the long term. I really dread the time commitment to do this, as I do occassional snapshots of user content (admin & non-admin accounts) by selectively using find, tar, and zipping to disc. That's dangerous because its easy to forget something and only discover that you have forgotten something important when the drive actually dies and you need to use the backup. I haven't gotten into the habit of using my $60 Norton backup utility (again from 2 years ago) because I want to see myself that I've selected all relevant content, and only relevant content. Where such content resides tends to shift over the years. And its easy to forget something. Can those with more experience with HD technology comment on this, based on the smartctl results? The drive is dying. Am I missing something important that I haven't already noted? Yes, that the drive is dying. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
SMART Reallocated Sector Count 269, Reallocated Event Count 20
On Saturday, August 30, 2014 6:23:15 PM UTC-4, Rod Speed wrote:
andymhancockATgmailDOTcom wrote I ran cygwin's smartmontools and compared it to results from 2 years ago. To interpret the results, I relied on google, and primarily the Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.M.A.R.T. . Higher normalized values are better, and it looks like 100 was selected as the healthy reference value for most of the attributes. It's the raw values that matter. The threshold seems to be for the normalized values. Are the thresholds of any value in terms of information? The remaining two attributes are #5 (Reallocated_Sector_Ct=269) That is very bad. and #196 (Reallocated_Event_Count=20). And that is bad too. ...snip... 269 is an obscene number of reallocated sectors and indicate a real problem. And you certainly can not trust a drive with that many, you should be backing up what matters all the time. ...snip... Yes, that the drive is dying. For a 600MB HD, are thre reasonable valuse be for Reallocated_Sector_Ct and Reallocated_Event_Count? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
SMART Reallocated Sector Count 269, Reallocated Event Count 20
wrote
Rod Speed wrote andymhancockATgmailDOTcom wrote I ran cygwin's smartmontools and compared it to results from 2 years ago. To interpret the results, I relied on google, and primarily the Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.M.A.R.T. . Higher normalized values are better, and it looks like 100 was selected as the healthy reference value for most of the attributes. It's the raw values that matter. The threshold seems to be for the normalized values. Yes. Are the thresholds of any value in terms of information? Only with at few odd attributes, most obviously with the ones that Seagate does differently where the raw values don't have any useful information from them. The remaining two attributes are #5 (Reallocated_Sector_Ct=269) That is very bad. and #196 (Reallocated_Event_Count=20). And that is bad too. ...snip... 269 is an obscene number of reallocated sectors and indicate a real problem. And you certainly can not trust a drive with that many, you should be backing up what matters all the time. ...snip... Yes, that the drive is dying. For a 600MB HD, are thre reasonable valuse be for Reallocated_Sector_Ct and Reallocated_Event_Count? Low single digit reallocated sectors is fine, but that's it. The reallocated event count isnt significant, it's the number of reallocated sectors that matters. The other one which can be significant is the pending sector count but isnt with your drive. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
SMART Reallocated Sector Count 269, Reallocated Event Count 20
On Sunday, August 31, 2014 3:07:34 AM UTC-4, Rod Speed wrote:
andymhancockATgmailDOTcom wrote Rod Speed wrote andymhancockATgmailDOTcom wrote I ran cygwin's smartmontools and compared it to results from 2 years ago. To interpret the results, I relied on google, and primarily the Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.M.A.R.T. . Higher normalized values are better, and it looks like 100 was selected as the healthy reference value for most of the attributes. It's the raw values that matter. The threshold seems to be for the normalized values. Yes. Are the thresholds of any value in terms of information? Only with at few odd attributes, most obviously with the ones that Seagate does differently where the raw values don't have any useful information from them. 269 is an obscene number of reallocated sectors and indicate a real problem. And you certainly can not trust a drive with that many, you should be backing up what matters all the time. ...snip... For a 600MB HD, are thre reasonable values for Reallocated_Sector_Ct and Reallocated_Event_Count? Low single digit reallocated sectors is fine, but that's it. The reallocated event count isnt significant, it's the number of reallocated sectors that matters. The other one which can be significant is the pending sector count but isnt with your drive. Thanks, Rod. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
SMART Reallocated Sector Count 269, Reallocated Event Count 20
On Sunday, August 31, 2014 11:00:50 AM UTC-4, andymh...ATgmailDOTcom wrote:
On Sunday, August 31, 2014 3:07:34 AM UTC-4, Rod Speed wrote: Low single digit reallocated sectors is fine, but that's it. The reallocated event count isnt significant, it's the number of reallocated sectors that matters. The other one which can be significant is the pending sector count but isnt with your drive. Thanks, Rod. I should add, this is the drive that replaced the HD 2 years ago, which exhibited problems after a few months. I'm utterly disappointed by the fragility of HDs. Whatever happened to the concept of brand reputation? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
SMART Reallocated Sector Count 269, Reallocated Event Count 20
wrote
andymh...ATgmailDOTcom wrote Rod Speed wrote Low single digit reallocated sectors is fine, but that's it. The reallocated event count isnt significant, it's the number of reallocated sectors that matters. The other one which can be significant is the pending sector count but isnt with your drive. Thanks, Rod. I should add, this is the drive that replaced the HD 2 years ago, which exhibited problems after a few months. Thought we had had previous history but didn't think to check. I'm utterly disappointed by the fragility of HDs. I haven't ever lost one myself in the last decade or so. The kids did manage to kill one by kicking it in a very small Atom powered desktop brick thing that they had on the floor where it was kickable. The G shock value is a worry with yours, did you drop it ? Whatever happened to the concept of brand reputation? You don't see those Toshibas dying like flys. Laptops do have a very hard life. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
SMART Reallocated Sector Count 269, Reallocated Event Count 20
On Sunday, August 31, 2014 3:15:26 PM UTC-4, Rod Speed wrote:
andymhancockATgmailDOTcom wrote: I'm utterly disappointed by the fragility of HDs. I haven't ever lost one myself in the last decade or so. The kids did manage to kill one by kicking it in a very small Atom powered desktop brick thing that they had on the floor where it was kickable. The G shock value is a worry with yours, did you drop it ? Whatever happened to the concept of brand reputation? You don't see those Toshibas dying like flys. Laptops do have a very hard life. This is good to know, Rod. I won't be paranoid about laptops now. As for whether I dropped it, I think this is in fact the one I dropped. But I think the SMART reports I posted back then (which is where I pulled the old data from for this post) did not indicate a problem. Someone, might have been you, explained that it might be because the drive was off -- I can't be sure, I just know that someone more knowledgeable than I proposed that explanation. Since then, the laptop has been given the princess treatment. I make sure that the Toshiba shock notification app is active so that I get immediate feedback of when I'm not being gentle enough. It hardly ever leaves the home (a 1-bedroom apartment) and hardly ever moves around in the apartment. So I'm not sure what could have happened since the to give it the G shock value. However, I'll take your anecdote of robustness as a good "data point". Anyway, I finished the backup after reading all the past caveats on using Norton Ghost 15. It boots and I'm using it now. The drive health seems much better (http://i57.tinypic.com/pwvoz.png). Raw values of key attributes from the S.M.A.R.T. wikipedia link: ID#5 = Reallocated_Sector_Ct = 0 ID#10 = Spin_Retry_Count = 0 ID#184 = End-to-End_Error = 0 ID#188 = Command_Timeout = 0 ID#196 = Reallocation Event Count -- DOESN'T EXIST !! ID#197 = Current_Pending_Sector = 0 ID#198 = Offline_Uncorrectable = 0 ID#201 = Soft Read Error Rate or TA Counter Detected -- DOESN'T EXIST !! ID#230 = Drive Life Protection Status -- DOESN'T EXIST !! Really odd that 196 doesn't exist in the new drive, but it does on the old drive. Also, it's odd that there are no threshold values. Perhaps thresholds aren't useful, since none of the problematic values in the old drive were close to their thresholds. Thanks for all your help! |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
SMART Reallocated Sector Count 269, Reallocated Event Count 20
On Sunday, August 31, 2014 10:49:03 PM UTC-4, Arno wrote:
andymhancockATgmailDOTcom wrote: I have an approximately 2-year Toshiba MK6476GSXN HD on my laptop (my only computer). Recently, I plugged in a faulty SD/USB converter, which caused all sorts of boot failures. Before I identified the failed converter, I thought that my HD was dying. I ran cygwin's smartmontools and compared it to results from 2 years ago. To interpret the results, I relied on google, and primarily the Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.M.A.R.T. . Higher normalized values are better, and it looks like 100 was selected as the healthy reference value for most of the attributes. Selected columns from the smartctl output are shown at http://i58.tinypic.com/6psq3q.png, with the current output (as opposed to 2 years ago) being a hybrid of using smartctl switches -x and -a. I'm not entirely sure whether 3 of these attributes are abnormal, and these are marked with triple asterisks. The middle marked attribute (#191, G-Sense_Error_Rate) is probably not an indicator of HD health, as the errors are due to physical jarring. The remaining two attributes are #5 (Reallocated_Sector_Ct=269) and #196 (Reallocated_Event_Count=20). There is no clear consensus on whether this is bad (e.g., see http://superuser.com/questions/26842...ocate-sectors), so I intend to keep an eye on it and migrate off the HD in the long term. ...snip... Can those with more experience with HD technology comment on this, based on the smartctl results? Am I missing something important that I haven't already noted? The key question is whether these reallocations showed up due to an external problem or due to a fault with the disk. Now you have that converter as possible source of the problems. Keep monitoring the rellocatiosn and if they grow, even if only slowly, replace the disk. But they could stay constant as well. I once had a disk in a server-room that after 1 year suddenly had about 300 reallocations. As it turned out, they were likely due to somebody using a power-tool direcly next to the disk while it was writing data. It continued to run fine 24/7 for another two years until it was replaced for other reasons. From the information you have, this can go either way. Side note: You should monitor smart-attibutes continuously and run long SMAR selfchecks about every 14-30 days. On Windows, the "Hard Disk Sentinel" does a good job of that and it will record the history of attributes. Understood that the bad SMART readings may be due to external factors. The thing is, I've already migrated off of it to a 500GB Momentus XT hybrid SSD/spinning drive. So the questionable Toshiba HD is no longer in the computer and will not see much action. I did this out of fear instead of staying the course and continuing to use the Toshiba HD with constant monitoring of the SMART parameters. It is in an enclsoure, but in the long term, I'll be trying to keep the Toshiba HD tucked away (if not recycled) simply because I have a very tiny space (which is also the reason why I have this laptop as the sole computer in the apartment). You mentioned in another thread that one could do conclusive testing. What kind of testing would be appropriately conclusive? Right now, I am thinking of the following (Toshiba does not provide it's own testing tools): * Windows 7 Disk Check, http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2641432/en-us * Hitachi Drive Fitness tool * Seagate's SeaTools * smartctl long self-test (I'm only now discovering all the smartctl options!) There is a hockey sock full of tools at http://pcsupport.about.com/od/toolso.../tophddiag.htm, but I'm thinking that one could spend a great deal of time trying out different tools unless one focuses on identifying the few well-trusted tools. Also, I'm not a big fan of going extreme and downloading a large number of things from a sight that I'm unfamiliar with, just from a cautionary perspective. You mentioned HD Sentinel -- I think I can set up cygwin's smartctl server to do this and email me, so the history will be stored in gmail, but I have yet to fiddle with it (a long term project,considering other competing priorities and the availability of manual testing). Since the questionable HD will not be connected to the computer in the long term, however, I'm wondering if such a plan is appropriate. I can always use it as a precautionary practice on the new Momentus XT; however, it's partially SDD and regular scans/defrags are not recommended, so I'm wondering if regular integrity tests are also not recommended. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New HD: SMART Fail: Reallocated sector Count | judas | Storage (alternative) | 14 | February 2nd 09 06:48 PM |
Hard drive failing? Reallocated Sector count warning | Sam | Storage (alternative) | 21 | October 21st 07 12:42 AM |
Reallocated Sector Count: Yellow warning in HD TUNE | Sam | Homebuilt PC's | 0 | September 18th 07 12:10 AM |
(05) Reallocated Sector Count 1 1 5 1882 Failed | [email protected] | Storage (alternative) | 17 | July 30th 06 11:08 PM |
S.M.A.R.T. reallocated sector count failure | Colonel Blip | Storage (alternative) | 28 | February 28th 06 10:52 PM |