Can I trust a hard drive that has had to reallocate sectors?
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
add a comment |
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
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
add a comment |
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
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
hard-drive smart community-faq-proposed
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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
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
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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. ".
What is considered "a high number"?
– MrWhite
Dec 1 '15 at 17:10
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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
add a comment |
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.
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.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
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.
answered Aug 20 '09 at 23:40
Josip Medved
8,39712439
8,39712439
add a comment |
add a comment |
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
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
add a comment |
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
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
add a comment |
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
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
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
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.
answered Aug 20 '09 at 23:40
Robert Cartaino♦
5,38862847
5,38862847
add a comment |
add a comment |
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. ".
What is considered "a high number"?
– MrWhite
Dec 1 '15 at 17:10
add a comment |
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. ".
What is considered "a high number"?
– MrWhite
Dec 1 '15 at 17:10
add a comment |
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. ".
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. ".
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
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