After seeing 27% acceptable health on one of my hdds, I decided to do numerous tests to see the results of these tests. All of them came back positive yet only HDS is complaining of this low health status. I first did chkdsk error-reporting via windows and to fix any errors and recover bad sectors and it detected nothing. I then proceeded to use Seagate tools to do SMART, short generic, and short drive self test which all passed in the green. Lastly I did a short and then extended self-test under HDS and it also reported no errors yet it shows 121 bad sectors on disk surface. I know some of these tests do detect bad sectors like chkdsk yet it showed all green as well with non detected. So... what gives?
Feels like it's giving false info or rather not really accurate ones and that I don't really need to replace the drive and can still be used for a length of time. I already took the liberty of moving all the files off the drive and reformatting in the process and am still using the drive now. Considering whether I should just move the files back or not...
HDD health accurate?
HDD health accurate?
- Attachments
-
- 2015-05-30_151131.jpg (96.19 KiB) Viewed 38443 times
-
- 2015-05-30_153944.jpg (408.58 KiB) Viewed 38443 times
-
- 2015-05-30_151235.jpg (218.1 KiB) Viewed 38443 times
-
hdsentinel
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3128
- Joined: 2008.07.27. 17:00
- Location: Hungary
- Contact:
Re: HDD health accurate?
To answer first and short: yes, HDD health is accurate.
> After seeing 27% acceptable health on one of my hdds, I decided to do numerous tests to see the results of these tests.
Yes, this is excellent - as it is always recommended to perform testing especially if things are not perfect,
exactly for this purpose:
- to reveal any kind of possible further issues
- fix them
- confirm if the hard disk is stable, to verify if it can be used (even if it's not perfect) for example after clearing the error-counters by Hard Disk Sentinel.
Generally, this is described at
http://www.hdsentinel.com/faq.php#tests
and
http://www.hdsentinel.com/faq_repair_ha ... _drive.php
> All of them came back positive yet only HDS is complaining of this low health status.
Excuse me, but HDS is not "complaining".
Hard Disk Sentinel detects and reports all possible problems found with the hard disk.
> I first did chkdsk error-reporting via windows and to fix any errors and recover bad sectors and it detected nothing.
Yes, this is completely normal and expected if the hard disk status is stable.
Chkdsk *never* finds or repairs problems with the hard disk, but "repairs" problem only with the logical volume / partition. Even if sounds surprising, this may be independent form the actual hard disk status.
Chkdsk can happily find problems on perfect hard disks (for example if the volume / partition corrupted by a simple reset, power-loss, malware/virus etc..) and can report no problems on an almost failed hard disk.
Also if chkdsk finds problems, it can't fix it: the problematic sector (which incorrectly reported as "bad sector" by chkdsk) will be re-used and cause problems for example on a new installation.
Please see http://www.hdsentinel.com/hard_disk_cas ... ectors.php for more details: slightly different issue, but clearly shows how chkdsk can't be used to diagnose and fix problems (but how the tests of Hard Disk Sentinel can really help to repair hard disk problem).
The "bad sectors" reported in the text description are no longer used by the hard disk: they are already reallocated.
So the spare area is used for all reads and writes targeting those bad sectors.
This means that disk surface tests (even the tests in Hard Disk Sentinel) does not access those sectors, but tests the remaining data area and the spare area. This is good, as this way you can be sure that the original (bad) area does not contain important data and can't risk data loss.
This is why the detected and reported bad sectors can NEVER cause problems, regardless of their position because that problematic area is never used any more. This is why manufacturers (really shame but work this way) "allow" some bad sectors and may not offer warrantly replacement, just when the error counter reaches a specific threshold they configured (when the health in Hard DisK Sentinel will be 0%).
Most hard disks never reach that point, fail long before that. And even if you may receive replacement, the data may be already lost if we wait.
This is why it is important to know
- the amount of real errors
- the possible change of the error counters: to determine if further problems may be reported or not
- to reveal any kind of possible other issues - or confirm if the drive is stable and can be used.
> I then proceeded to use Seagate tools to do SMART, short generic, and short drive self test which all passed in the green.
This does no more than the Disk menu -> Short self test , Extended Self test in Hard Disk Sentinel.
> Lastly I did a short and then extended self-test under HDS and it also reported no errors
Yes, it is completely expected that the results are same, as Hard Disk Sentinel also performs those hardware tests.
Just Hard Disk Sentinel offers much more tests in Disk menu -> Surface test, which are more sensitive to errors and possible (even minor) issues.
By the surface tests in Hard Disk Sentinel, you can verify if the currently used data area is error-free, there are no further errors reported (no weak, damaged sectors, no further problems). See the Help -> Hard Disk Tests for more information about the tests.
Other test tools are not really recommended, as most of them are simply not sensitive enough for issues, does not report possible retries, slower areas, does not monitor operation conditions during the test. Chkdsk is the worst we can mention, as this is (even with /R /B switches) does NOT test the hard disk itself, but tests and "repairs" only the logical volume, the partition itself.
> yet it shows 121 bad sectors on disk surface.
Yes - as the hard disk has 121 such bad sectors, which are re-allocated and no longer used.
> I know some of these tests do detect bad sectors like chkdsk yet it showed all green as well with non detected.
The surface tests show problems of sectors which are still used and can cause problems, data corruption or even data loss.
Yes, they can result in red (can't be read/written) or yellow (damaged - but can be processed after one or more retries) blocks.
If all blocks are green, then it means that currently the complete hard disk surface area is usable, there are no problems.
So then you can any time *manually* clear the error counters, to acknowledge those problems, confirmed that you verified the hard disk with the tests and as the problems already fixed, then you do not want to see them - and want to be notified about possible new issues.
This way the errors will be cleared from the text description and the health will increase back.
And if you're lucky, then there will be no new problems reported during further use of the hard disk.
> Feels like it's giving false info or rather not really accurate ones
Absolutely not.
Exactly the opposite: giving THE only real and accurate information, which may remain unknown until you'll face a complete data loss as without detection and reporting such issues, you may not notice the problems and the possible degradation (which may likely happen, especially considering the age of the hard disk).
> and that I don't really need to replace the drive and can still be used for a length of time.
Yes, this is true. Now, after confirmed that the hard disk is stable - it can still be used. Preferably with constant monitoring - to be notified about possible new issues, degradation.
> I already took the liberty of moving all the files off the drive and reformatting in the process and am still using the drive now.
> Considering whether I should just move the files back or not...
Generally, it's your decision. This depends on the amount and IMPORTANCE of the data.
Maybe (considering both the health and the lifetime of the hard disk) it may still be used, maybe for secondary storage (not in mission-critical environment for mission-critical data) and only with constant monitoring.
> After seeing 27% acceptable health on one of my hdds, I decided to do numerous tests to see the results of these tests.
Yes, this is excellent - as it is always recommended to perform testing especially if things are not perfect,
exactly for this purpose:
- to reveal any kind of possible further issues
- fix them
- confirm if the hard disk is stable, to verify if it can be used (even if it's not perfect) for example after clearing the error-counters by Hard Disk Sentinel.
Generally, this is described at
http://www.hdsentinel.com/faq.php#tests
and
http://www.hdsentinel.com/faq_repair_ha ... _drive.php
> All of them came back positive yet only HDS is complaining of this low health status.
Excuse me, but HDS is not "complaining".
Hard Disk Sentinel detects and reports all possible problems found with the hard disk.
> I first did chkdsk error-reporting via windows and to fix any errors and recover bad sectors and it detected nothing.
Yes, this is completely normal and expected if the hard disk status is stable.
Chkdsk *never* finds or repairs problems with the hard disk, but "repairs" problem only with the logical volume / partition. Even if sounds surprising, this may be independent form the actual hard disk status.
Chkdsk can happily find problems on perfect hard disks (for example if the volume / partition corrupted by a simple reset, power-loss, malware/virus etc..) and can report no problems on an almost failed hard disk.
Also if chkdsk finds problems, it can't fix it: the problematic sector (which incorrectly reported as "bad sector" by chkdsk) will be re-used and cause problems for example on a new installation.
Please see http://www.hdsentinel.com/hard_disk_cas ... ectors.php for more details: slightly different issue, but clearly shows how chkdsk can't be used to diagnose and fix problems (but how the tests of Hard Disk Sentinel can really help to repair hard disk problem).
The "bad sectors" reported in the text description are no longer used by the hard disk: they are already reallocated.
So the spare area is used for all reads and writes targeting those bad sectors.
This means that disk surface tests (even the tests in Hard Disk Sentinel) does not access those sectors, but tests the remaining data area and the spare area. This is good, as this way you can be sure that the original (bad) area does not contain important data and can't risk data loss.
This is why the detected and reported bad sectors can NEVER cause problems, regardless of their position because that problematic area is never used any more. This is why manufacturers (really shame but work this way) "allow" some bad sectors and may not offer warrantly replacement, just when the error counter reaches a specific threshold they configured (when the health in Hard DisK Sentinel will be 0%).
Most hard disks never reach that point, fail long before that. And even if you may receive replacement, the data may be already lost if we wait.
This is why it is important to know
- the amount of real errors
- the possible change of the error counters: to determine if further problems may be reported or not
- to reveal any kind of possible other issues - or confirm if the drive is stable and can be used.
> I then proceeded to use Seagate tools to do SMART, short generic, and short drive self test which all passed in the green.
This does no more than the Disk menu -> Short self test , Extended Self test in Hard Disk Sentinel.
> Lastly I did a short and then extended self-test under HDS and it also reported no errors
Yes, it is completely expected that the results are same, as Hard Disk Sentinel also performs those hardware tests.
Just Hard Disk Sentinel offers much more tests in Disk menu -> Surface test, which are more sensitive to errors and possible (even minor) issues.
By the surface tests in Hard Disk Sentinel, you can verify if the currently used data area is error-free, there are no further errors reported (no weak, damaged sectors, no further problems). See the Help -> Hard Disk Tests for more information about the tests.
Other test tools are not really recommended, as most of them are simply not sensitive enough for issues, does not report possible retries, slower areas, does not monitor operation conditions during the test. Chkdsk is the worst we can mention, as this is (even with /R /B switches) does NOT test the hard disk itself, but tests and "repairs" only the logical volume, the partition itself.
> yet it shows 121 bad sectors on disk surface.
Yes - as the hard disk has 121 such bad sectors, which are re-allocated and no longer used.
> I know some of these tests do detect bad sectors like chkdsk yet it showed all green as well with non detected.
The surface tests show problems of sectors which are still used and can cause problems, data corruption or even data loss.
Yes, they can result in red (can't be read/written) or yellow (damaged - but can be processed after one or more retries) blocks.
If all blocks are green, then it means that currently the complete hard disk surface area is usable, there are no problems.
So then you can any time *manually* clear the error counters, to acknowledge those problems, confirmed that you verified the hard disk with the tests and as the problems already fixed, then you do not want to see them - and want to be notified about possible new issues.
This way the errors will be cleared from the text description and the health will increase back.
And if you're lucky, then there will be no new problems reported during further use of the hard disk.
> Feels like it's giving false info or rather not really accurate ones
Absolutely not.
Exactly the opposite: giving THE only real and accurate information, which may remain unknown until you'll face a complete data loss as without detection and reporting such issues, you may not notice the problems and the possible degradation (which may likely happen, especially considering the age of the hard disk).
> and that I don't really need to replace the drive and can still be used for a length of time.
Yes, this is true. Now, after confirmed that the hard disk is stable - it can still be used. Preferably with constant monitoring - to be notified about possible new issues, degradation.
> I already took the liberty of moving all the files off the drive and reformatting in the process and am still using the drive now.
> Considering whether I should just move the files back or not...
Generally, it's your decision. This depends on the amount and IMPORTANCE of the data.
Maybe (considering both the health and the lifetime of the hard disk) it may still be used, maybe for secondary storage (not in mission-critical environment for mission-critical data) and only with constant monitoring.
-
hdsentinel
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3128
- Joined: 2008.07.27. 17:00
- Location: Hungary
- Contact:
Re: HDD health accurate?
To be short, to clear the error counter and restore the health:
1) open S.M.A.R.T. page and select the attribute "5 Reallocated sectors count"
2) click on the 0 in the "Offset" column for that attribute
3) after acknowledging the notice, enter the amount of problems reported with negatve sign:
-121
After closing the window, in some seconds, the health will increase back to 100% and the errors will be removed from the text description.
Then Hard Disk Sentinel will warn only if it detects any kind of new (even minor) problem.
FYI: on the graph you sent, it is clearly visible that the amount of bad sectors was 120, so it increased.
This suggests that (even if the hard disk status is NOW stable) more problems may be detected.
Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not on the next week - but in the near future.
The hard disk can't be considered as error-free.
1) open S.M.A.R.T. page and select the attribute "5 Reallocated sectors count"
2) click on the 0 in the "Offset" column for that attribute
3) after acknowledging the notice, enter the amount of problems reported with negatve sign:
-121
After closing the window, in some seconds, the health will increase back to 100% and the errors will be removed from the text description.
Then Hard Disk Sentinel will warn only if it detects any kind of new (even minor) problem.
FYI: on the graph you sent, it is clearly visible that the amount of bad sectors was 120, so it increased.
This suggests that (even if the hard disk status is NOW stable) more problems may be detected.
Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not on the next week - but in the near future.
The hard disk can't be considered as error-free.
Re: HDD health accurate?
Damn... didn't think I would get a nicely put coherent response in great detail. Thanks for the info there hds, really appreciate it. I apologize if I called your app a "complainer" instead of just informing me. Was just confused with the status giving the all green on all the tests I did.
That aside, I have done the SMART reset that you've provided and all is well. I am guessing this is only used if and when you have done all the tests I have mentioned previously? Since no files scanned were in the bad sectors and all reports are green, it is safe to say the status would be 100% again I think until new errors are reported.
"When you run chkdsk and it finds bad sectors several things happen -- there is an attempt to move any data to a good sector and the bad sector is marked in the HDD firmware as a user found bad sector so it will not be used again. The bad sectors cannot be repaired so they are mapped out and never used again. You don't need to reformat to deal with them. The data that was in the bad sectors may not have been recovered so some files may be corrupt.
But as I said, run chkdsk again in a week or so to see if there are more found -- it is symptomatic of a bad drive if they continue to be found."
<---Nice response I found while seeing if I could 'recover/fix' bad sectors...
So all in all, what would you suggest I do with this hdd now that it reports 121 bad sectors? Since it is sort of still viably usable still but would need more monitoring and/or replacing soon, should I just put it aside and use a new hdd altogether? Is there a limit on how many bad sectors a hdd should have before replacement or rather how many it can take it can't replace any more bad sectors with good sectors?
That aside, I have done the SMART reset that you've provided and all is well. I am guessing this is only used if and when you have done all the tests I have mentioned previously? Since no files scanned were in the bad sectors and all reports are green, it is safe to say the status would be 100% again I think until new errors are reported.
"When you run chkdsk and it finds bad sectors several things happen -- there is an attempt to move any data to a good sector and the bad sector is marked in the HDD firmware as a user found bad sector so it will not be used again. The bad sectors cannot be repaired so they are mapped out and never used again. You don't need to reformat to deal with them. The data that was in the bad sectors may not have been recovered so some files may be corrupt.
But as I said, run chkdsk again in a week or so to see if there are more found -- it is symptomatic of a bad drive if they continue to be found."
<---Nice response I found while seeing if I could 'recover/fix' bad sectors...
So all in all, what would you suggest I do with this hdd now that it reports 121 bad sectors? Since it is sort of still viably usable still but would need more monitoring and/or replacing soon, should I just put it aside and use a new hdd altogether? Is there a limit on how many bad sectors a hdd should have before replacement or rather how many it can take it can't replace any more bad sectors with good sectors?
-
hdsentinel
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3128
- Joined: 2008.07.27. 17:00
- Location: Hungary
- Contact:
Re: HDD health accurate?
Me thanks too, I'm glad if I could help 
I hope it was not boring or too technical, just wanted to explain things.
Many times users ask "why Hard Disk Sentinel does not automatically make the offset and show that the hard disk is perfect?"
Exactly because it does not want to "hide" problems and showing that things are good - until we understand the background, how things work and how then it is even more important to monitor and verify possible changes / new problems.
> That aside, I have done the SMART reset that you've provided and all is well.
> I am guessing this is only used if and when you have done all the tests I have mentioned previously?
Generally, it is possible to perform the reset of the S.M.A.R.T. any time - but yes, exactly as you wrote, it is best to do AFTER performing the tests, when you confirmed that the status is really stable, there are no new problems.
> Since no files scanned were in the bad sectors and all reports are green,
> it is safe to say the status would be 100% again I think until new errors are reported.
Yes, as the tests confirmed that all problems already fixed (by reallocation, so all previous bad sectors already replaced from the spare area) then now it is safe to say that it is 100% perfect and usable - exactly as you wrote: until new errors are reported.
> When you run chkdsk and it finds bad sectors several things happen
> there is an attempt to move any data to a good sector and the bad sector is marked in the
> HDD firmware as a user found bad sector so it will not be used again.
This is absolutely FALSE.
> The bad sectors cannot be repaired so they are mapped out and never used again.
> You don't need to reformat to deal with them.
This is absolutely FALSE.
> The data that was in the bad sectors may not have been recovered so some files may be corrupt.
Yes, this is TRUE.
When chkdsk finds an unreadable sector (which is considered "bad" in the chkdsk terminology), then yes, it marks that sector in the CURRENT FILE SYSTEM (partition) only as "bad" to prevent further access of that sector.
There is NO attempt to move the data anywhere (the current file system / partition has no spare space for that).
There is NO attempt to force the hard disk to repair the sector "internally" in the hard disk firmware, chkdsk performs fixes at the level of the current partition.
So what will happen if you ever remove the partition, for example making new partition(s) to perform a clean re-install?
That sector will be happily re-used and can cause data corruption, data loss.
So then the disk problem remains, chkdsk happily show that there is XX bad sectors on the current partition.
Yes, there is a better way which really forces the hard disk to move data to spare area, replace the sector from the spare area and then the original area will be no longer used. This is the reallocation performed by the hard disk and this may happen any time (but not with chkdsk) if required.
Just some methods, for example the Disk menu -> Surface test -> Reinitialise disk surface test in Hard Disk Sentinel are intensive enough to let the hard disk find out easier that the sector is really damaged and should be replaced from the spare area - if required.
The problem is that chkdsk only "see" and "fixes" sectors which are not really bad. The "real" bad sectors (which already re-allocated and replaced by the hard disk) never found by chkdsk.
The sectors chkdsk finds are the "weak" sectors, which are really damaged somehow and should not be used to store data in their current form, until the hard disk really verifies their status - and reallocate (if required) or repair the sector.
The page
http://www.hdsentinel.com/hard_disk_cas ... ectors.php
exactly describes this situation:
1) when weak sectors reported by Hard Disk Sentinel, chkdsk shows "bad" sectors in the volume. We may assume they're fixed, but no, just chkdsk marked the volume to never use those bad sectors in this partition.
As you can see, these reduce the usable capacity (xx KB in bad sectors) - as the current partition has no reserved space for this purpose.
2) when we fix the problem with Hard Disk Sentinel (which increased the health back to 100%, without using the offsets or any S.M.A.R.T. manipulation, just by the Reinitialise disk surface test), and perform the re-format, then chkdsk finds and reports no problems.
And the "best": when you image/clone the original partition (where previously chkdsk reported bad sectors) to a new (tested and surely perfect) hard disk, this will clone the partition meta-data, including the marker of the bad sectors previously saved by chkdsk.
So then on the new hard disk, you'll have a partition with the same number of "bad sectors" (reported by chkdsk) - even if that hard disk is 100% healthy and there are no problems at all.
> But as I said, run chkdsk again in a week or so to see if there are more found
> it is symptomatic of a bad drive if they continue to be found.
You may run chkdsk any time to verify, reveal and fix possible problems with FILE SYSTEM (the current partition).
But if you want to diagnose, verify, reveal and fix possible problems with the hard disk, then chkdsk is NOT a good solution.
> <---Nice response I found while seeing if I could 'recover/fix' bad sectors...
Nice - but leads to wrong direction.
> So all in all, what would you suggest I do with this hdd now that it reports 121 bad sectors?
> Since it is sort of still viably usable still but would need more monitoring and/or replacing soon,
> should I just put it aside and use a new hdd altogether?
As the hard disk status is stable now, it can be used.
If this would be a young drive, personally I'd use only with constant monitoring and considering to have spare space as I'd perform immediate backup on any (even minor) new problem, degradation.
However, considering that it's power on time is 1901 days, it may be fine for storing old data, backups etc... which are not used daily.
> Is there a limit on how many bad sectors a hdd should have before replacement or
> rather how many it can take it can't replace any more bad sectors with good sectors?
There are such limits - but the problem is different.
10-20 (or even 121) bad sectors can be fine if their number does not increase.
The problem is that higher number of bad sectors may result higher risk of even more bad sectors to be reported in the future (due to the areal density, neighbour sectors can also fail). And usually not only 1-2 new bad sectors detected, their number can easily jump - and in most cases, with 1000's bad sectors (even if there may be room in the spare area) the hard disk usually become unusable.
Usually really high number of bad sectors required to reach the error-level threshold set by the manufacturer.
And usually hard disks dies before that (or at least partial / complete data loss occur).
Generally, this is why long time ago people started to think that S.M.A.R.T. data is not able to predict failures - but just it was incorrectly used by checking the error-thresholds only (and still incorrectly used in other tools and system BIOS).
The page www.hdsentinel.com/smart shows the problems with this approach and how Hard Disk Sentinel does differenly by reporting the real error counters.
I hope it was not boring or too technical, just wanted to explain things.
Many times users ask "why Hard Disk Sentinel does not automatically make the offset and show that the hard disk is perfect?"
Exactly because it does not want to "hide" problems and showing that things are good - until we understand the background, how things work and how then it is even more important to monitor and verify possible changes / new problems.
> That aside, I have done the SMART reset that you've provided and all is well.
> I am guessing this is only used if and when you have done all the tests I have mentioned previously?
Generally, it is possible to perform the reset of the S.M.A.R.T. any time - but yes, exactly as you wrote, it is best to do AFTER performing the tests, when you confirmed that the status is really stable, there are no new problems.
> Since no files scanned were in the bad sectors and all reports are green,
> it is safe to say the status would be 100% again I think until new errors are reported.
Yes, as the tests confirmed that all problems already fixed (by reallocation, so all previous bad sectors already replaced from the spare area) then now it is safe to say that it is 100% perfect and usable - exactly as you wrote: until new errors are reported.
> When you run chkdsk and it finds bad sectors several things happen
> there is an attempt to move any data to a good sector and the bad sector is marked in the
> HDD firmware as a user found bad sector so it will not be used again.
This is absolutely FALSE.
> The bad sectors cannot be repaired so they are mapped out and never used again.
> You don't need to reformat to deal with them.
This is absolutely FALSE.
> The data that was in the bad sectors may not have been recovered so some files may be corrupt.
Yes, this is TRUE.
When chkdsk finds an unreadable sector (which is considered "bad" in the chkdsk terminology), then yes, it marks that sector in the CURRENT FILE SYSTEM (partition) only as "bad" to prevent further access of that sector.
There is NO attempt to move the data anywhere (the current file system / partition has no spare space for that).
There is NO attempt to force the hard disk to repair the sector "internally" in the hard disk firmware, chkdsk performs fixes at the level of the current partition.
So what will happen if you ever remove the partition, for example making new partition(s) to perform a clean re-install?
That sector will be happily re-used and can cause data corruption, data loss.
So then the disk problem remains, chkdsk happily show that there is XX bad sectors on the current partition.
Yes, there is a better way which really forces the hard disk to move data to spare area, replace the sector from the spare area and then the original area will be no longer used. This is the reallocation performed by the hard disk and this may happen any time (but not with chkdsk) if required.
Just some methods, for example the Disk menu -> Surface test -> Reinitialise disk surface test in Hard Disk Sentinel are intensive enough to let the hard disk find out easier that the sector is really damaged and should be replaced from the spare area - if required.
The problem is that chkdsk only "see" and "fixes" sectors which are not really bad. The "real" bad sectors (which already re-allocated and replaced by the hard disk) never found by chkdsk.
The sectors chkdsk finds are the "weak" sectors, which are really damaged somehow and should not be used to store data in their current form, until the hard disk really verifies their status - and reallocate (if required) or repair the sector.
The page
http://www.hdsentinel.com/hard_disk_cas ... ectors.php
exactly describes this situation:
1) when weak sectors reported by Hard Disk Sentinel, chkdsk shows "bad" sectors in the volume. We may assume they're fixed, but no, just chkdsk marked the volume to never use those bad sectors in this partition.
As you can see, these reduce the usable capacity (xx KB in bad sectors) - as the current partition has no reserved space for this purpose.
2) when we fix the problem with Hard Disk Sentinel (which increased the health back to 100%, without using the offsets or any S.M.A.R.T. manipulation, just by the Reinitialise disk surface test), and perform the re-format, then chkdsk finds and reports no problems.
And the "best": when you image/clone the original partition (where previously chkdsk reported bad sectors) to a new (tested and surely perfect) hard disk, this will clone the partition meta-data, including the marker of the bad sectors previously saved by chkdsk.
So then on the new hard disk, you'll have a partition with the same number of "bad sectors" (reported by chkdsk) - even if that hard disk is 100% healthy and there are no problems at all.
> But as I said, run chkdsk again in a week or so to see if there are more found
> it is symptomatic of a bad drive if they continue to be found.
You may run chkdsk any time to verify, reveal and fix possible problems with FILE SYSTEM (the current partition).
But if you want to diagnose, verify, reveal and fix possible problems with the hard disk, then chkdsk is NOT a good solution.
> <---Nice response I found while seeing if I could 'recover/fix' bad sectors...
Nice - but leads to wrong direction.
> So all in all, what would you suggest I do with this hdd now that it reports 121 bad sectors?
> Since it is sort of still viably usable still but would need more monitoring and/or replacing soon,
> should I just put it aside and use a new hdd altogether?
As the hard disk status is stable now, it can be used.
If this would be a young drive, personally I'd use only with constant monitoring and considering to have spare space as I'd perform immediate backup on any (even minor) new problem, degradation.
However, considering that it's power on time is 1901 days, it may be fine for storing old data, backups etc... which are not used daily.
> Is there a limit on how many bad sectors a hdd should have before replacement or
> rather how many it can take it can't replace any more bad sectors with good sectors?
There are such limits - but the problem is different.
10-20 (or even 121) bad sectors can be fine if their number does not increase.
The problem is that higher number of bad sectors may result higher risk of even more bad sectors to be reported in the future (due to the areal density, neighbour sectors can also fail). And usually not only 1-2 new bad sectors detected, their number can easily jump - and in most cases, with 1000's bad sectors (even if there may be room in the spare area) the hard disk usually become unusable.
Usually really high number of bad sectors required to reach the error-level threshold set by the manufacturer.
And usually hard disks dies before that (or at least partial / complete data loss occur).
Generally, this is why long time ago people started to think that S.M.A.R.T. data is not able to predict failures - but just it was incorrectly used by checking the error-thresholds only (and still incorrectly used in other tools and system BIOS).
The page www.hdsentinel.com/smart shows the problems with this approach and how Hard Disk Sentinel does differenly by reporting the real error counters.
Re: HDD health accurate?
I am getting this issue..
https://superuser.com/questions/1335832 ... ector-sata
Whats the diagnosis?
https://superuser.com/questions/1335832 ... ector-sata
Whats the diagnosis?