Difference in S.M.A.R.T. results

When I run SpeedFan, it says I have 3680 reallocated sectors while HDTune says everything is fine.

Anyone else seen this ?

Thanks,
Andy

Andy wrote:
When I run SpeedFan, it says I have 3680 reallocated sectors while HDTune says everything is fine.

Anyone else seen this ?

Thanks,
Andy

Take a look at the raw parameters, and see if Speedfan is
interpreting the wrong offset as "reallocations".

SMART isn't as standardized as you'd think. It's pretty
difficult for a software developer to know about
all the issues, and write a "perfect" reporting
utility. Really, Seagate should write a utility
for Seagate drives, WD should write a utility for
WD drives, and so on. That would be the solution
to the problem. Not by getting your readout from Speedfan
or HDTune. The companies that made the mess, should
clean it up.

Paul

I do not think those utilities are reliable.

They have shown "supposed" problems for several years yet I have never lost any data.

I make daily images.

Andy

Paul wrote on 2/3/2015 4:00 PM:
Andy wrote:
When I run SpeedFan, it says I have 3680 reallocated sectors while
HDTune says everything is fine.

Anyone else seen this ?

Thanks,
Andy

Take a look at the raw parameters, and see if Speedfan is
interpreting the wrong offset as "reallocations".

SMART isn't as standardized as you'd think. It's pretty
difficult for a software developer to know about
all the issues, and write a "perfect" reporting
utility. Really, Seagate should write a utility
for Seagate drives, WD should write a utility for
WD drives, and so on. That would be the solution
to the problem. Not by getting your readout from Speedfan
or HDTune. The companies that made the mess, should
clean it up.

Paul
Hello,

As I understand it the interpretation of SMART values is "roll your
own". However, the main field names (and identifier) are specified. So
the issue is converting raw values to something sensible.
--
Jeff Barnett

On 04 Feb 2015, wrote in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:

I have never seen much value in SMART. The only time I ever see
anything is after the drive has failed and at that point I don't
really care what was actually wrong with it. You are still buying
a new one and counting on your backups to get your data back.

I've had several disks that were about to go bad, but the motherboard
warned me in advance, based on its SMART statistics. SMART is a good
thing, IMO.

When I run SpeedFan, it says I have 3680 reallocated sectors while
HDTune says everything is fine.

Anyone else seen this ?
Take a look at the raw parameters, and see if Speedfan is
interpreting the wrong offset as "reallocations".

SMART isn't as standardized as you'd think. It's pretty
difficult for a software developer to know about
all the issues, and write a "perfect" reporting
utility. Really, Seagate should write a utility
for Seagate drives, WD should write a utility for
WD drives, and so on. That would be the solution
to the problem. Not by getting your readout from Speedfan
or HDTune. The companies that made the mess, should
clean it up.

How come there aren't a SMART standards?
--
"Every ruler sleeps on an anthill." --Afghani
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

Ant wrote:
When I run SpeedFan, it says I have 3680 reallocated sectors while
HDTune says everything is fine.

Anyone else seen this ?
Take a look at the raw parameters, and see if Speedfan is
interpreting the wrong offset as "reallocations".

SMART isn't as standardized as you'd think. It's pretty
difficult for a software developer to know about
all the issues, and write a "perfect" reporting
utility. Really, Seagate should write a utility
for Seagate drives, WD should write a utility for
WD drives, and so on. That would be the solution
to the problem. Not by getting your readout from Speedfan
or HDTune. The companies that made the mess, should
clean it up.

How come there aren't a SMART standards?

The t13.org site contains a number of ATA/ATAPI standards
organization documents. The fun part, is figuring out
where this stuff is located (SMART Attribute Annex).
I know it'll be on here somewhere, but I can't pull
these rabbits out of a hat when I need them.

http://www.t13.org/Documents/Uploade...butesAnnex.pdf

The standard has a number of annexes at the back, but the
ones I have on disk here, I'm not finding the SMART log most
people are used to seeing. There are also SMART tests you
can run on a disk, immediate tests - something the diagnostics
from the two companies undoubtedly call when doing the
warranty claim tests.

For some comedy, I've extracted a bit of text from the above document.
In it, someone appears to want to assemble a list of SMART table
entries already in usage.

"Partial list of SMART Attributes Identifiers

This is a list of SMART attributes and names obtained
from an opensource project.

[Note: This list was originally obtained from sourceforge.net,
as compiled by Bruce Allen. I have edited some of the
descriptions for grammar and spelling. ]

This list is not intended to be comprehensive, complete
or authoritative. Some of the IDs listed have other
names and uses that are vendor-specific.

Some of these have been obsolete for a long time and are not supported.

The descriptions are vague and subject to multiple interpretations.

Consider everything in this list to be vendor-specific: scale,
measurement units, threshholds, when they get cleared, minimum
and maximum values."

Now that quotation is from the year 2005, and I'm *sure* by now
things are a lot better :-) LOL.

"Round up the usual suspects"

Imagine you're a standards body, and things are so well documented,
you're extracting stuff from Sourceforge :-) That could have been
a project like SMARTMonTools.

Paul

I ran the extensive disk test and it came out as 98% healthy.
Andy

wrote:
On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 10:25:39 -0800 (PST), Andy
wrote:

I ran the extensive disk test and it came out as 98% healthy.
Andy

What the hell does that mean? Isn't it like being a little pregnant?

It means you're not supposed to use the 1% unhealthy part.

Of course the unhealthy part always stays at the end of the disk. /s

*******

One way to reach such a conclusion, might be by using
reallocations as an indicator. Maybe 99% of spare
sectors remain (even though the bookkeeping seems
rather crooked).

Paul

In message , Paul
writes:
[]
The t13.org site contains a number of ATA/ATAPI standards
organization documents. The fun part, is figuring out
where this stuff is located (SMART Attribute Annex).
[]
The standard has a number of annexes at the back, but the
ones I have on disk here, I'm not finding the SMART log most
[]
or authoritative. Some of the IDs listed have other
names and uses that are vendor-specific.
[]
You are in a maze of twisty standards, all alike ...
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"You know what they say. In London you're never more than ten feet away from a
lying politician." The Downing Street rat, "quoted" by Rod Liddle in Radio
Times, 12-18 February 2011

On 2015-02-03 16:45, Andy wrote:

When I run SpeedFan, it says I have 3680 reallocated sectors while HDTune says everything is fine.

Anyone else seen this ?

Thanks,
Andy


Might want to get a 3rd opinion; this one works fine for me and is able
to get USB disks SMART stats where other tools have failed:

http://www.passmark.com/products/diskcheckup.htm

Regards,

--
! _\|/_ Sylvain /
! (o o) Member-+-David-Suzuki-Foundation/EFF/Planetary-Society-+-
oO-( )-Oo BIT: The increment by which programmers slowly go mad.

On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 23:21:17 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

[snip]

You are in a maze of twisty standards, all alike ...

No, the problem is that they are all different.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

In message , Gene Wirchenko
writes:
On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 23:21:17 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

[snip]

You are in a maze of twisty standards, all alike ...

No, the problem is that they are all different.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

It was an adventurous reference ... (-: [and not original either!]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Look out for #1. Don't step in #2 either.

On Fri, 6 Feb 2015 22:35:36 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Gene Wirchenko
writes:
On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 23:21:17 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

[snip]

You are in a maze of twisty standards, all alike ...

No, the problem is that they are all different.

It was an adventurous reference ... (-: [and not original either!]

There was more than one maze in the Colossal Cave. One was the
all-same, and the other was the all-different.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko