Can I trust a hard drive that has had to reallocate sectors?












25














I ran this HD utility called CrystalDiskInfo that displays some of the S.M.A.R.T. information on my drives. It is displaying a "Caution" warning on one of my drives because its "Reallocated Sectors Count" value is 263 (ideally it should be 0 as it is on all of the other drives I have tested).



I posted this question on another forum and the general consensus of the responders was to back up immediately and get rid of the drive. The drive is fairly new and only has 4575 hours on it. I just learned about this utility a few weeks ago, so I don't know when the reallocation of these sectors may have occurred, but it hasn't changed.



Can I trust this drive?





Update (9/27/2009): That reallocated sector count stayed at 293 until about a week ago when I noticed it went up by 1. Just yesterday, I noticed it's up to 659. It's under warranty and is going back to the manufacturer for replacement.










share|improve this question




















  • 3




    Thanks for pointing out CrystalDiskInfo! I like that they have a portable version.
    – Jared Harley
    Aug 20 '09 at 23:47










  • You should never trust any hard drive. 100% of drives are guaranteed to fail eventually. "Further, 36% of drives failed without recording any S.M.A.R.T. error at all, except the temperature, meaning that S.M.A.R.T. data alone was of limited usefulness in anticipating failures." Always have redundancy of some type.
    – endolith
    Jan 21 '16 at 21:11


















25














I ran this HD utility called CrystalDiskInfo that displays some of the S.M.A.R.T. information on my drives. It is displaying a "Caution" warning on one of my drives because its "Reallocated Sectors Count" value is 263 (ideally it should be 0 as it is on all of the other drives I have tested).



I posted this question on another forum and the general consensus of the responders was to back up immediately and get rid of the drive. The drive is fairly new and only has 4575 hours on it. I just learned about this utility a few weeks ago, so I don't know when the reallocation of these sectors may have occurred, but it hasn't changed.



Can I trust this drive?





Update (9/27/2009): That reallocated sector count stayed at 293 until about a week ago when I noticed it went up by 1. Just yesterday, I noticed it's up to 659. It's under warranty and is going back to the manufacturer for replacement.










share|improve this question




















  • 3




    Thanks for pointing out CrystalDiskInfo! I like that they have a portable version.
    – Jared Harley
    Aug 20 '09 at 23:47










  • You should never trust any hard drive. 100% of drives are guaranteed to fail eventually. "Further, 36% of drives failed without recording any S.M.A.R.T. error at all, except the temperature, meaning that S.M.A.R.T. data alone was of limited usefulness in anticipating failures." Always have redundancy of some type.
    – endolith
    Jan 21 '16 at 21:11
















25












25








25


4





I ran this HD utility called CrystalDiskInfo that displays some of the S.M.A.R.T. information on my drives. It is displaying a "Caution" warning on one of my drives because its "Reallocated Sectors Count" value is 263 (ideally it should be 0 as it is on all of the other drives I have tested).



I posted this question on another forum and the general consensus of the responders was to back up immediately and get rid of the drive. The drive is fairly new and only has 4575 hours on it. I just learned about this utility a few weeks ago, so I don't know when the reallocation of these sectors may have occurred, but it hasn't changed.



Can I trust this drive?





Update (9/27/2009): That reallocated sector count stayed at 293 until about a week ago when I noticed it went up by 1. Just yesterday, I noticed it's up to 659. It's under warranty and is going back to the manufacturer for replacement.










share|improve this question















I ran this HD utility called CrystalDiskInfo that displays some of the S.M.A.R.T. information on my drives. It is displaying a "Caution" warning on one of my drives because its "Reallocated Sectors Count" value is 263 (ideally it should be 0 as it is on all of the other drives I have tested).



I posted this question on another forum and the general consensus of the responders was to back up immediately and get rid of the drive. The drive is fairly new and only has 4575 hours on it. I just learned about this utility a few weeks ago, so I don't know when the reallocation of these sectors may have occurred, but it hasn't changed.



Can I trust this drive?





Update (9/27/2009): That reallocated sector count stayed at 293 until about a week ago when I noticed it went up by 1. Just yesterday, I noticed it's up to 659. It's under warranty and is going back to the manufacturer for replacement.







hard-drive smart community-faq-proposed






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Nov 10 '16 at 4:23









bwDraco

36.5k36135177




36.5k36135177










asked Aug 20 '09 at 23:30









raven

4,12753149




4,12753149








  • 3




    Thanks for pointing out CrystalDiskInfo! I like that they have a portable version.
    – Jared Harley
    Aug 20 '09 at 23:47










  • You should never trust any hard drive. 100% of drives are guaranteed to fail eventually. "Further, 36% of drives failed without recording any S.M.A.R.T. error at all, except the temperature, meaning that S.M.A.R.T. data alone was of limited usefulness in anticipating failures." Always have redundancy of some type.
    – endolith
    Jan 21 '16 at 21:11
















  • 3




    Thanks for pointing out CrystalDiskInfo! I like that they have a portable version.
    – Jared Harley
    Aug 20 '09 at 23:47










  • You should never trust any hard drive. 100% of drives are guaranteed to fail eventually. "Further, 36% of drives failed without recording any S.M.A.R.T. error at all, except the temperature, meaning that S.M.A.R.T. data alone was of limited usefulness in anticipating failures." Always have redundancy of some type.
    – endolith
    Jan 21 '16 at 21:11










3




3




Thanks for pointing out CrystalDiskInfo! I like that they have a portable version.
– Jared Harley
Aug 20 '09 at 23:47




Thanks for pointing out CrystalDiskInfo! I like that they have a portable version.
– Jared Harley
Aug 20 '09 at 23:47












You should never trust any hard drive. 100% of drives are guaranteed to fail eventually. "Further, 36% of drives failed without recording any S.M.A.R.T. error at all, except the temperature, meaning that S.M.A.R.T. data alone was of limited usefulness in anticipating failures." Always have redundancy of some type.
– endolith
Jan 21 '16 at 21:11






You should never trust any hard drive. 100% of drives are guaranteed to fail eventually. "Further, 36% of drives failed without recording any S.M.A.R.T. error at all, except the temperature, meaning that S.M.A.R.T. data alone was of limited usefulness in anticipating failures." Always have redundancy of some type.
– endolith
Jan 21 '16 at 21:11












5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















12














In my experience it's a toss-up. I've had one drive that had some reallocated sectors and a nasty whine that ended up outlasting some drives that gave no warnings before dying a miserable death. I actually chucked it because it was so noisy, rather than data loss.



However, for me, personally, at the first sign of problems in a drive, I backup then swap it off. Drives are cheap, online backups are cheap and if you're anything like me, your time is better spent elsewhere than trying to recover a drive.






share|improve this answer























  • I'll accept your answer based on your second paragraph. I don't think this question can be answered with a definitive "No!". But, as you said, drives are cheap so why take chances? Plus, this drive seems to be deteriorating (see my recent update to the question).
    – raven
    Sep 27 '09 at 17:32










  • Getting worse is never a good sign :)
    – emgee
    Sep 27 '09 at 20:49



















5














I have drive that has 165 of them for a long time now. They all happened at one time and never increased since (two years ago). I would just closely monitor that figure. If it is just one time increase, do not worry.






share|improve this answer





























    5














    Rather than just ditching the drive, you might want to just keep an eye on it first, to see if the reallocated sector count increases. If that count continues to increase, the drive is finding and mapping out more and more bad sectors.



    I guess it depends on what this drive is doing - is it "mission-critical" or on a server? If so, I would be more nervous than if it's in a home PC not doing a whole lot (as long as you make regular backups of the data, which of course you should do anyways).



    Edit: I just downloaded and ran CrystalDiskInfo on my harddrive here at work (an always-on PC, as we're a 24-hour operation), and it's logged 7739 power on hours and has 100 reallocated sectors.



    For those who don't know, reallocated sectors are:




    Count of reallocated sectors. When the
    hard drive finds a
    read/write/verification error, it
    marks this sector as "reallocated" and
    transfers data to a special reserved
    area (spare area). This process is
    also known as remapping, and
    "reallocated" sectors are called
    remaps. This is why, on modern hard
    disks, "bad blocks" cannot be found
    while testing the surface – all bad
    blocks are hidden in reallocated
    sectors. However, as the number of
    reallocated sectors increases, the
    read/write speed tends to decrease.
    The raw value normally represents a
    count of the number of bad sectors
    that have been found and remapped.
    Thus, the higher the attribute value,
    the more sectors the drive has had to
    reallocate.




    Source: Wikipedia






    share|improve this answer























    • I have tested other drives that have 18-35,000 hours and no reallocated sectors. In fact, this is the only drive with a value above 0 out of 9 drives that I have tested. That's what disturbs me.
      – raven
      Aug 21 '09 at 0:00



















    3














    It depends on how critical the data on the drive is.



    You should always keep good backups... but in your case, I would keep an eye on it. If the number of reallocated sectors is not increasing, it might not be a deteriorating problem. It might have been a manufacturing defect or a one-time bump.



    If you want to squeeze some more life out of it, I would say "use it." Use it for static data (pictures, music, applications, etc) that you can recover from a backup if the drive fails. But I would tend to prefer my other drives for data that is a bit more important to you.






    share|improve this answer





























      2














      It might be a sign, but in general you should not be worried
      until the reallocation count goes to a high number.



      Modern drives are so dense that reallocations are quite
      common.



      On the Security Now podcast Steve Gibson has talked about
      this. See e.g. episode 196, near "there are sectors
      that are going bad before they have gone bad. ".






      share|improve this answer























      • What is considered "a high number"?
        – MrWhite
        Dec 1 '15 at 17:10











      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "3"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f26842%2fcan-i-trust-a-hard-drive-that-has-had-to-reallocate-sectors%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      5 Answers
      5






      active

      oldest

      votes








      5 Answers
      5






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      12














      In my experience it's a toss-up. I've had one drive that had some reallocated sectors and a nasty whine that ended up outlasting some drives that gave no warnings before dying a miserable death. I actually chucked it because it was so noisy, rather than data loss.



      However, for me, personally, at the first sign of problems in a drive, I backup then swap it off. Drives are cheap, online backups are cheap and if you're anything like me, your time is better spent elsewhere than trying to recover a drive.






      share|improve this answer























      • I'll accept your answer based on your second paragraph. I don't think this question can be answered with a definitive "No!". But, as you said, drives are cheap so why take chances? Plus, this drive seems to be deteriorating (see my recent update to the question).
        – raven
        Sep 27 '09 at 17:32










      • Getting worse is never a good sign :)
        – emgee
        Sep 27 '09 at 20:49
















      12














      In my experience it's a toss-up. I've had one drive that had some reallocated sectors and a nasty whine that ended up outlasting some drives that gave no warnings before dying a miserable death. I actually chucked it because it was so noisy, rather than data loss.



      However, for me, personally, at the first sign of problems in a drive, I backup then swap it off. Drives are cheap, online backups are cheap and if you're anything like me, your time is better spent elsewhere than trying to recover a drive.






      share|improve this answer























      • I'll accept your answer based on your second paragraph. I don't think this question can be answered with a definitive "No!". But, as you said, drives are cheap so why take chances? Plus, this drive seems to be deteriorating (see my recent update to the question).
        – raven
        Sep 27 '09 at 17:32










      • Getting worse is never a good sign :)
        – emgee
        Sep 27 '09 at 20:49














      12












      12








      12






      In my experience it's a toss-up. I've had one drive that had some reallocated sectors and a nasty whine that ended up outlasting some drives that gave no warnings before dying a miserable death. I actually chucked it because it was so noisy, rather than data loss.



      However, for me, personally, at the first sign of problems in a drive, I backup then swap it off. Drives are cheap, online backups are cheap and if you're anything like me, your time is better spent elsewhere than trying to recover a drive.






      share|improve this answer














      In my experience it's a toss-up. I've had one drive that had some reallocated sectors and a nasty whine that ended up outlasting some drives that gave no warnings before dying a miserable death. I actually chucked it because it was so noisy, rather than data loss.



      However, for me, personally, at the first sign of problems in a drive, I backup then swap it off. Drives are cheap, online backups are cheap and if you're anything like me, your time is better spent elsewhere than trying to recover a drive.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited Sep 27 '09 at 22:50









      hyperslug

      12k43960




      12k43960










      answered Aug 21 '09 at 2:12









      emgee

      4,1671626




      4,1671626












      • I'll accept your answer based on your second paragraph. I don't think this question can be answered with a definitive "No!". But, as you said, drives are cheap so why take chances? Plus, this drive seems to be deteriorating (see my recent update to the question).
        – raven
        Sep 27 '09 at 17:32










      • Getting worse is never a good sign :)
        – emgee
        Sep 27 '09 at 20:49


















      • I'll accept your answer based on your second paragraph. I don't think this question can be answered with a definitive "No!". But, as you said, drives are cheap so why take chances? Plus, this drive seems to be deteriorating (see my recent update to the question).
        – raven
        Sep 27 '09 at 17:32










      • Getting worse is never a good sign :)
        – emgee
        Sep 27 '09 at 20:49
















      I'll accept your answer based on your second paragraph. I don't think this question can be answered with a definitive "No!". But, as you said, drives are cheap so why take chances? Plus, this drive seems to be deteriorating (see my recent update to the question).
      – raven
      Sep 27 '09 at 17:32




      I'll accept your answer based on your second paragraph. I don't think this question can be answered with a definitive "No!". But, as you said, drives are cheap so why take chances? Plus, this drive seems to be deteriorating (see my recent update to the question).
      – raven
      Sep 27 '09 at 17:32












      Getting worse is never a good sign :)
      – emgee
      Sep 27 '09 at 20:49




      Getting worse is never a good sign :)
      – emgee
      Sep 27 '09 at 20:49













      5














      I have drive that has 165 of them for a long time now. They all happened at one time and never increased since (two years ago). I would just closely monitor that figure. If it is just one time increase, do not worry.






      share|improve this answer


























        5














        I have drive that has 165 of them for a long time now. They all happened at one time and never increased since (two years ago). I would just closely monitor that figure. If it is just one time increase, do not worry.






        share|improve this answer
























          5












          5








          5






          I have drive that has 165 of them for a long time now. They all happened at one time and never increased since (two years ago). I would just closely monitor that figure. If it is just one time increase, do not worry.






          share|improve this answer












          I have drive that has 165 of them for a long time now. They all happened at one time and never increased since (two years ago). I would just closely monitor that figure. If it is just one time increase, do not worry.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Aug 20 '09 at 23:40









          Josip Medved

          8,39712439




          8,39712439























              5














              Rather than just ditching the drive, you might want to just keep an eye on it first, to see if the reallocated sector count increases. If that count continues to increase, the drive is finding and mapping out more and more bad sectors.



              I guess it depends on what this drive is doing - is it "mission-critical" or on a server? If so, I would be more nervous than if it's in a home PC not doing a whole lot (as long as you make regular backups of the data, which of course you should do anyways).



              Edit: I just downloaded and ran CrystalDiskInfo on my harddrive here at work (an always-on PC, as we're a 24-hour operation), and it's logged 7739 power on hours and has 100 reallocated sectors.



              For those who don't know, reallocated sectors are:




              Count of reallocated sectors. When the
              hard drive finds a
              read/write/verification error, it
              marks this sector as "reallocated" and
              transfers data to a special reserved
              area (spare area). This process is
              also known as remapping, and
              "reallocated" sectors are called
              remaps. This is why, on modern hard
              disks, "bad blocks" cannot be found
              while testing the surface – all bad
              blocks are hidden in reallocated
              sectors. However, as the number of
              reallocated sectors increases, the
              read/write speed tends to decrease.
              The raw value normally represents a
              count of the number of bad sectors
              that have been found and remapped.
              Thus, the higher the attribute value,
              the more sectors the drive has had to
              reallocate.




              Source: Wikipedia






              share|improve this answer























              • I have tested other drives that have 18-35,000 hours and no reallocated sectors. In fact, this is the only drive with a value above 0 out of 9 drives that I have tested. That's what disturbs me.
                – raven
                Aug 21 '09 at 0:00
















              5














              Rather than just ditching the drive, you might want to just keep an eye on it first, to see if the reallocated sector count increases. If that count continues to increase, the drive is finding and mapping out more and more bad sectors.



              I guess it depends on what this drive is doing - is it "mission-critical" or on a server? If so, I would be more nervous than if it's in a home PC not doing a whole lot (as long as you make regular backups of the data, which of course you should do anyways).



              Edit: I just downloaded and ran CrystalDiskInfo on my harddrive here at work (an always-on PC, as we're a 24-hour operation), and it's logged 7739 power on hours and has 100 reallocated sectors.



              For those who don't know, reallocated sectors are:




              Count of reallocated sectors. When the
              hard drive finds a
              read/write/verification error, it
              marks this sector as "reallocated" and
              transfers data to a special reserved
              area (spare area). This process is
              also known as remapping, and
              "reallocated" sectors are called
              remaps. This is why, on modern hard
              disks, "bad blocks" cannot be found
              while testing the surface – all bad
              blocks are hidden in reallocated
              sectors. However, as the number of
              reallocated sectors increases, the
              read/write speed tends to decrease.
              The raw value normally represents a
              count of the number of bad sectors
              that have been found and remapped.
              Thus, the higher the attribute value,
              the more sectors the drive has had to
              reallocate.




              Source: Wikipedia






              share|improve this answer























              • I have tested other drives that have 18-35,000 hours and no reallocated sectors. In fact, this is the only drive with a value above 0 out of 9 drives that I have tested. That's what disturbs me.
                – raven
                Aug 21 '09 at 0:00














              5












              5








              5






              Rather than just ditching the drive, you might want to just keep an eye on it first, to see if the reallocated sector count increases. If that count continues to increase, the drive is finding and mapping out more and more bad sectors.



              I guess it depends on what this drive is doing - is it "mission-critical" or on a server? If so, I would be more nervous than if it's in a home PC not doing a whole lot (as long as you make regular backups of the data, which of course you should do anyways).



              Edit: I just downloaded and ran CrystalDiskInfo on my harddrive here at work (an always-on PC, as we're a 24-hour operation), and it's logged 7739 power on hours and has 100 reallocated sectors.



              For those who don't know, reallocated sectors are:




              Count of reallocated sectors. When the
              hard drive finds a
              read/write/verification error, it
              marks this sector as "reallocated" and
              transfers data to a special reserved
              area (spare area). This process is
              also known as remapping, and
              "reallocated" sectors are called
              remaps. This is why, on modern hard
              disks, "bad blocks" cannot be found
              while testing the surface – all bad
              blocks are hidden in reallocated
              sectors. However, as the number of
              reallocated sectors increases, the
              read/write speed tends to decrease.
              The raw value normally represents a
              count of the number of bad sectors
              that have been found and remapped.
              Thus, the higher the attribute value,
              the more sectors the drive has had to
              reallocate.




              Source: Wikipedia






              share|improve this answer














              Rather than just ditching the drive, you might want to just keep an eye on it first, to see if the reallocated sector count increases. If that count continues to increase, the drive is finding and mapping out more and more bad sectors.



              I guess it depends on what this drive is doing - is it "mission-critical" or on a server? If so, I would be more nervous than if it's in a home PC not doing a whole lot (as long as you make regular backups of the data, which of course you should do anyways).



              Edit: I just downloaded and ran CrystalDiskInfo on my harddrive here at work (an always-on PC, as we're a 24-hour operation), and it's logged 7739 power on hours and has 100 reallocated sectors.



              For those who don't know, reallocated sectors are:




              Count of reallocated sectors. When the
              hard drive finds a
              read/write/verification error, it
              marks this sector as "reallocated" and
              transfers data to a special reserved
              area (spare area). This process is
              also known as remapping, and
              "reallocated" sectors are called
              remaps. This is why, on modern hard
              disks, "bad blocks" cannot be found
              while testing the surface – all bad
              blocks are hidden in reallocated
              sectors. However, as the number of
              reallocated sectors increases, the
              read/write speed tends to decrease.
              The raw value normally represents a
              count of the number of bad sectors
              that have been found and remapped.
              Thus, the higher the attribute value,
              the more sectors the drive has had to
              reallocate.




              Source: Wikipedia







              share|improve this answer














              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              edited Aug 20 '09 at 23:45

























              answered Aug 20 '09 at 23:37









              Jared Harley

              11.3k33249




              11.3k33249












              • I have tested other drives that have 18-35,000 hours and no reallocated sectors. In fact, this is the only drive with a value above 0 out of 9 drives that I have tested. That's what disturbs me.
                – raven
                Aug 21 '09 at 0:00


















              • I have tested other drives that have 18-35,000 hours and no reallocated sectors. In fact, this is the only drive with a value above 0 out of 9 drives that I have tested. That's what disturbs me.
                – raven
                Aug 21 '09 at 0:00
















              I have tested other drives that have 18-35,000 hours and no reallocated sectors. In fact, this is the only drive with a value above 0 out of 9 drives that I have tested. That's what disturbs me.
              – raven
              Aug 21 '09 at 0:00




              I have tested other drives that have 18-35,000 hours and no reallocated sectors. In fact, this is the only drive with a value above 0 out of 9 drives that I have tested. That's what disturbs me.
              – raven
              Aug 21 '09 at 0:00











              3














              It depends on how critical the data on the drive is.



              You should always keep good backups... but in your case, I would keep an eye on it. If the number of reallocated sectors is not increasing, it might not be a deteriorating problem. It might have been a manufacturing defect or a one-time bump.



              If you want to squeeze some more life out of it, I would say "use it." Use it for static data (pictures, music, applications, etc) that you can recover from a backup if the drive fails. But I would tend to prefer my other drives for data that is a bit more important to you.






              share|improve this answer


























                3














                It depends on how critical the data on the drive is.



                You should always keep good backups... but in your case, I would keep an eye on it. If the number of reallocated sectors is not increasing, it might not be a deteriorating problem. It might have been a manufacturing defect or a one-time bump.



                If you want to squeeze some more life out of it, I would say "use it." Use it for static data (pictures, music, applications, etc) that you can recover from a backup if the drive fails. But I would tend to prefer my other drives for data that is a bit more important to you.






                share|improve this answer
























                  3












                  3








                  3






                  It depends on how critical the data on the drive is.



                  You should always keep good backups... but in your case, I would keep an eye on it. If the number of reallocated sectors is not increasing, it might not be a deteriorating problem. It might have been a manufacturing defect or a one-time bump.



                  If you want to squeeze some more life out of it, I would say "use it." Use it for static data (pictures, music, applications, etc) that you can recover from a backup if the drive fails. But I would tend to prefer my other drives for data that is a bit more important to you.






                  share|improve this answer












                  It depends on how critical the data on the drive is.



                  You should always keep good backups... but in your case, I would keep an eye on it. If the number of reallocated sectors is not increasing, it might not be a deteriorating problem. It might have been a manufacturing defect or a one-time bump.



                  If you want to squeeze some more life out of it, I would say "use it." Use it for static data (pictures, music, applications, etc) that you can recover from a backup if the drive fails. But I would tend to prefer my other drives for data that is a bit more important to you.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Aug 20 '09 at 23:40









                  Robert Cartaino

                  5,38862847




                  5,38862847























                      2














                      It might be a sign, but in general you should not be worried
                      until the reallocation count goes to a high number.



                      Modern drives are so dense that reallocations are quite
                      common.



                      On the Security Now podcast Steve Gibson has talked about
                      this. See e.g. episode 196, near "there are sectors
                      that are going bad before they have gone bad. ".






                      share|improve this answer























                      • What is considered "a high number"?
                        – MrWhite
                        Dec 1 '15 at 17:10
















                      2














                      It might be a sign, but in general you should not be worried
                      until the reallocation count goes to a high number.



                      Modern drives are so dense that reallocations are quite
                      common.



                      On the Security Now podcast Steve Gibson has talked about
                      this. See e.g. episode 196, near "there are sectors
                      that are going bad before they have gone bad. ".






                      share|improve this answer























                      • What is considered "a high number"?
                        – MrWhite
                        Dec 1 '15 at 17:10














                      2












                      2








                      2






                      It might be a sign, but in general you should not be worried
                      until the reallocation count goes to a high number.



                      Modern drives are so dense that reallocations are quite
                      common.



                      On the Security Now podcast Steve Gibson has talked about
                      this. See e.g. episode 196, near "there are sectors
                      that are going bad before they have gone bad. ".






                      share|improve this answer














                      It might be a sign, but in general you should not be worried
                      until the reallocation count goes to a high number.



                      Modern drives are so dense that reallocations are quite
                      common.



                      On the Security Now podcast Steve Gibson has talked about
                      this. See e.g. episode 196, near "there are sectors
                      that are going bad before they have gone bad. ".







                      share|improve this answer














                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer








                      edited Aug 21 '09 at 9:07

























                      answered Aug 20 '09 at 23:42









                      Peter Mortensen

                      8,331166184




                      8,331166184












                      • What is considered "a high number"?
                        – MrWhite
                        Dec 1 '15 at 17:10


















                      • What is considered "a high number"?
                        – MrWhite
                        Dec 1 '15 at 17:10
















                      What is considered "a high number"?
                      – MrWhite
                      Dec 1 '15 at 17:10




                      What is considered "a high number"?
                      – MrWhite
                      Dec 1 '15 at 17:10


















                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Super User!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                      Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                      Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f26842%2fcan-i-trust-a-hard-drive-that-has-had-to-reallocate-sectors%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Probability when a professor distributes a quiz and homework assignment to a class of n students.

                      Aardman Animations

                      Are they similar matrix