What this squares with different color means?

[quaxth]

As the title says.

I'm new to this software and run at the moment a full Surface test at an HDD which has just 19% Health left. Most of the squares shown are very light green, except a few, which shows a different kind of gree, darker:



What are that different colors really meaning?

Normally I use HDD Regenerator, Drevitalize, and HDDLFMT for to check and format HDDs.

Thanks for any info.

[hdsentinel]

Please see the Help which clearly, with BOLD shows the answer:

Darker green color means that the sectors are slower and harder to process (read or write depending on the test type) but they are still good.

( https://www.hdsentinel.com/help/en/61_surfacetest.html )

Some such darker blocks are completely normal, but if they form continuous larger areas (near yellow / red blocks), they may likely fail.
This is also described on the above mentioned page with examples.

Excellent - just all such repairing / regeneration functions are included in Hard Disk Sentinel Pro (plus it supports new devices, hard disks, hybrid drives, SSDs, RAIDs, industrial memory cards and so - in addition to offering highest possible test speeds with the option to test multiple drives at the same time), so there is no real point in using other tools for this purpose....

[quaxth]

Thanks for the reply.

I'll still carry on the use of Drevitalize. The reasons are simply that DR gives me more info about slow sectors than any other app. And for sure, HD Sentinel will also be used further on.

On that HDD I posted that picture from, even after the full Surface test's, there isn't any change in the health percentage, it still shows just 19%! At this very moment I doing an HDD LLFMT and after that, I'll do a Repair Scan with Drevitalize, at least a 3 times loop, and set the pointer for to Slow Sectors to 50ms, while the DR standard is 150ms. Tha will be done in a different computer and I'll also install HD Sentinel in that machine and see what the report will 'say'. I afraid the computer which I used firstly for to test that HDD, will not change anything in the report. But let see what will happen?!

[hdsentinel]

> On that HDD I posted that picture from, even after the full Surface test's, there isn't any change in the health percentage, it still shows just 19%!

Yes of course, this is completely normal and expected.
Hard disks count the number of bad sectors in their lifetime and no test will clear these, so generally the test does not increase health (except in some special situatons, for example when weak sectors reported and the health is relativel high).

But yes, after the test is completed and you confirmed that the status is stable, you can manually acknowledge problems by clearing the error counters in Hard Disk Sentinel: so then Hard Disk Sentinel will no longer report previous issues (as they're already fixed) just possible new problems, if there will be.

For more information, please check:
http://www.hdsentinel.com/faq_repair_ha ... _drive.php

Also there are some topics in this forum with more details, for example:
https://www.hdsentinel.com/forum/viewto ... 32&t=11567

[quaxth]

Thanks a lot for your very informative answer.

Regarding that HDD with 19% Health, I already reset the counters to -0- and run at this time a new Surface and Repair test in HDSentinel. Will see what will be the outcome after that.

In addition, I've another same Hitachi HDD (same Model etc.) which had a problem with the writing speed. I first changed the Data Cable to a new one and also used a different computer to re-check and still, the speed was below 20mb/s. I removed the HDD's PCB and used a soft Pencil Rubber for to clean the connectors for Data and HD-Motor. Now the writing speed is back to normal and I firstly run a test with Drevitalize for to see there a lot of slow sectors. After that, I'll put it back to the computer with HD-Sentinel, and re-run that tests there. Let see what will be the outcome?!

[hdsentinel]

Generally the Disk Repair test is best used when weak (pending) sectors detected: if the Disk menu -> Surface test -> Read test shows red blocks and the data is important (no backup possible).

Personally for diagnosing such problematic disks (when the stored data is not important and you want to verify the operation of the disk itself) I'd instead run

- Disk menu -> Surface test -> Read test, to verify complete data area and check possible slowness, degradations, retries
- Disk menu -> Surface test -> Write + Read test (probably with non-zero write pattern, which can be configured when you select Disk menu -> Surface test and click on the Configuration tab before starting the test) maybe multiple times
- and/or Disk menu -> Surface test -> Reinitialize disk surface which is the most effective way to force the hard disk to repair problems and verify both read/write capabilities of the disk drives.

[quaxth]

Thanks for the reply.

Could you please tell me what is the normal writing speed using the Surface Test/Reinitialize on a normal SATA 3 HDD 500GB? And, is there any Log-File for action taken by the user (like Surface Test/Reinitialize etc.) about the may occurred problems with the HDD and so on?

As I compare the speeds of HD Sentinel, I found that those speeds quite slow compare to other Test Apps like Drevitalize, HDD Regenerator and others.

Thanks for any more info.

[hdsentinel]

I can confirm that no: the tests in Hard Disk Sentinel are the fastest possible solution for testing, even with simple IDE/SATA drives and also USB drives, SCSI/SAS drives, pendrives, memory cards and so (even with non-standard sector sizes like special SAS drives formatted with 520 / 528 bytes/sector).

As described in the text description of the test (the Reinitialize Disk Surface Test) it performs 3 x overwrite with special initialization patterns (3 is the default but this can be adjusted) and then erase (fill with zeroes) and then read back the data to verify that it's actually written and not damaged / altered / corrupted.

This makes that that Reinitialize Disk Surface test (as it performs 5x disk access, 4 writes and 1 reads on all sectors) is 5x slower than a simple read test performed by the other tools, so the performance is approximately 20-25 MBytes/sec for a typical 500 GB HDD.

If you prefer faster solution, the Disk Repair test is the same as you may used in other tools, it is much faster and performs repairing, reallocation (regeneration or re-vitalization, there can be many names to call) to repair problems.
This (or less effective) functions offered by the other tools you mentioned, so if you prefer to compare performance, you would need to compare THIS test.

Just Hard Disk Sentinel offers numerous, more effective ways. If you prefer faster than the Reinitialize Disk Surface test, you may try
- Disk menu -> Surface test -> Write test (single pass complete overwrite, fill with zeroes, random data or any specified pattern)
- Disk menu -> Surface test -> Write + Read test (same as above with complete read back and verification).

Generally this Disk menu -> Surface test -> Write + Read test is the simpler version of the Reinitialize Disk Surface test and take less than half time to finish.

[quaxth]

I used the Surface Test/Reinitialize and the speed was about 6.5-6.8MBs on a WDC 500GB SATA3 HDD while using the same HDD with Drevitalize the destructive write and read test with a setting for slow sectors refreshing 99times by 50ms, the speed was above 48MBs. And that on the same computer.

The test with HD Sentinel was running about 30h while with Drevitalize that test was done after 3h!

I've to mention that there wasn't any damaged, bad or weak sector shown in HD Sentinel, and same there wasn't any different color as that standard green one for that squares in the GUI of HD Sentinel.

Even if I take into account those overwrite cycles etc., as you mention in your post, the actual speed of 6.5-6.8MBs didn't even come near to the 20-25MBs you mention.

Please don't get me wrong, I do not tell that your App has a problem, it's bad or whatsoever, it simply looks a bit curious as I compare several apps and some of the others are (a lot) faster. If I use LLFMT form HDDGURU.COM, the Low-Level Formatting will run on that same HDD with a speed of above 100MBs. I simply try to find out if there is any real benefit in using HD Sentinel, and till now I didn't find some.

Let me something explain: I live in Thailand and doing repairs for several Orphanages and institutes for Disabled Youngsters for free because there isn't any Budget for such repairs and/or exchanges. I'm 71 years old and spend some money from my low Retirement income to help those children and youngsters to have their electronic equipment on working conditions so they could use it for their daily needs. That's it!

Thanks for your understanding.

[hdsentinel]

6.5 - 6.8 MB/sec is extremely slow. This may only happen if you connect a hard disk with USB 2.0 connection which limits the maximum transfer speed to approx. 30-35 MByte/sec (total). Considering that the Reinitialize Disk Surface is very intensive and process every sectors 5 times, yes, this gives exactly the speed you wrote (6.8 x 5 = 34).

But then the other tool also can't perform much faster when the disk used with same connection, configuration. Sorry, this is simply not possible as the bandwidth is limited by the connection and/or a possible used USB dock/enclosure/adapter (or something else in the system).

As I tried to explain, the Reinitialize Disk Surface is much more intensive (and this is why it may be more effective than any other "zero fill", "regeneration", "low level format", "revitalize" functions).
You wrote that you used a simple WRITE test of the other tool, so if you want to compare performance, you'd need to compare the SAME functions, then please use Disk menu -> Surface test -> WRITE test.

Here is a screenshot: it clearly shows that the write test on a typical 500 GB WD hard disk starts from 100 MByte/sec in Hard Disk Sentinel:



And a Reinitialize Disk Surface on the same hard disk, same connection starts from 27 MByte/sec:



So as you can see, this is exactly what I wrote: the test performs with highest possible speed. For these tests, I used USB 3.0 connection, same should happen when the drive would be connected to internal SATA connector.
Connecting this drive with USB 2.0 adapter/enclosure would drop performance lots, then I'd get the values you wrote.
But it is not really problem, limitation of Hard Disk Sentinel ....

If the performance on your system is different, I'd recommend to use Report menu -> Send test report to developer option.
Then I can examine the actual situation, verify connection, possible USB adapter/bridge (if used) and/or driver version and can examine the situation better. Also then I could reproduce and investigate.

> Even if I take into account those overwrite cycles etc., as you mention in your post, the actual
> speed of 6.5-6.8MBs didn't even come near to the 20-25MBs you mention.

Yes, it's true if the performance is limited by USB 2.0 connection (or something else, for example the total bandwidth of your controller if you perform multiple tests at the same time).

> Please don't get me wrong, I do not tell that your App has a problem, it's bad or whatsoever,

Thanks

> it simply looks a bit curious as I compare several apps and some of the others are (a lot) faster.

This is really weird for me as personally, regardless of connection, disk types, models, firmware, drivers, disk / RAID controller or so, I never experienced similar: in same configuration, Hard Disk Sentinel was always faster than other tools (if other tools could at least recognise and fully utilise the disk drive).

Not sure which Hard Disk Sentinel version you used, but I suspect it is not a very-very old version...
Since the first versions, the tests improved lots (and new testing functions / options added) but this should not affect the results in this case (may affect performance testing of some special SAS drives but this is other question).


> Low-Level Formatting will run on that same HDD with a speed of above 100MBs.

Sorry, but I can confirm that Low-level formatting is NOT POSSIBLE on any modern hard disk.
If any tool shows they perform LLF - they all wrong.
They may perform a zero-fill (write zeroes to all sectors) - which is 100% same as Disk menu -> Surface test -> Write test in Hard Disk Sentinel with its default settings.

The "Low level format" function (which re-sets sector markers) are not possible on IDE/SATA/USB hard disks released these days (or in the last many years).
Some special SAS hard disks may offer that function to change the size of non-standard sectors (for example to make 520 / 528 bytes/sector) but not for SATA hard disks. Just for some info: such non-standard hard disks could be read/written/tested/diagnosed/repaired/reinitialized by Hard Disk Sentinel (while no other software can do similar).

And this kind of zero-fill (or we can call write testing) is done by Hard Disk Sentinel too, with numerous options/functions (overwrite passes, partial overwrite, special fill patterns and so) - of course with highest possible speed.


> I simply try to find out if there is any real benefit in using HD Sentinel, and till now I didn't find some.

Thanks for your honest words.
There are really LOTS of benefits: if you check the Store page, it shows the most important functions/features:

https://www.hdsentinel.com/store.php

Generally disk testing and this function is only one of the many of Hard Disk Sentinel.

Disk monitoring with "standard" environment (IDE/SATA/USB hard disks) and special situations like internal/external RAIDs, external disks, SCSI/SAS drives, industrial memory cards, NAS devices - are just the ones I'd mention first. Hard Disk Sentinel has highest compatibility and status-detection functionality for all kind of devices, including hard disks, SSDs, hybrid drives, 4K drives, RAID controllers, external single and multi-drive enclosures - most (or all) of them are not supported by any other tools.

The main purpose of Hard Disk Sentinel to detect and reveal possible issues real-time, alert and notify about any problems, degradations which may lead to failure or "just" data corruption / data loss.

Intensive disk testing with highly configurable options - plus the ability to perform same or different tests at the same time on multiple drives also make it unique. Plus Hard Disk Sentinel can show the actual files/folders damaged and allows immediate repair of them during the tests. Plus it monitors and detects changes, degradations and issues with the disk drive.
Monitoring performance is critical, this is what Hard Disk Sentinel also does. Setting ms values is nice, but alone it is not really enough or correct unless we can monitor the real status, possible changes and other factors.

And we did not mention the extra features like reporting, exporting status information, automatic backup, remote monitoring etc... all included in Hard Disk Sentinel (only).

If you do not use any of these functions and you simply want a tool ONLY to overwrite your hard disks (or if preferred, we can call "low level format" even if it is not correct) then yes, you may not require Hard Disk Sentinel at all. Hard Disk Sentinel can do this - but if you do not see the benefits of monitoring, alerting and problem-reporting (plus the other testing, backup and additional options) then yes, Hard Disk Sentinel may not be required.

> Let me something explain: I live in Thailand and doing repairs for several Orphanages and
> institutes for Disabled Youngsters for free because there isn't any Budget for such repairs and/or exchanges.

I can completely understand the situation.
This is (even if my company is not a big one) exactly from time-to-time with our partners, we offer complete, fully functional Hard Disk Sentinel versions FOR FREE. Such promotions are not rare, will be possible in the near future.

So I *never* asked to spend money if you do not require (or do not see) the benefits, functions, features, compatibility of Hard Disk Sentinel.

[quaxth]

What the hell you're talking about USB2?? If you really had read my post, you should have realized that I use SATA 3 (6Gb/s) and didn't talk about USB 2 by any means!

The speed I got using HD Sentinel was just 6.5-6.8MBs on SATA3, 6Gb/s!

That's it, simple as that!

[quaxth]

Forget to mention: if I use USB I use USB3.0 (5-6Gb/s)!

[hdsentinel]

You wrote:

> WDC 500GB SATA3 HDD

but this may not confirm that the disk drive is connected to SATA (any version) or USB connection.
The values you wrote suggested USB 2.0 connection, as this is the one where I could imagine the very low transfer speed.

I did not yet receive the developer report which would help: from that, I can see the actual connection, controller, driver version (and Hard Disk Sentinel version) and investigate that particular situation, reproduce and check what can be in the background.

In the meantime, did lots of testing with direct SATA connection to proper controllers (both motherboard integrated on various chipsets and add-on cards), of course Hard Disk Sentinel always performed with fastest possible speed.