Who to believe - Microsoft or Seagate?

While participating in another thread here I ran Seagate's SeaTools for Windows disk checker and discovered, rather to my surprise, that one of my two Barracudas - my data drive, not my OS drive - failed the test. I ran CHKDSK /R and that discovered 11 faulty clusters and stated that these had been added to the bad clusters record and that no further action was necessary. I took this to mean that the system would not attempt to write to or read those clusters again. I then ran the SeaTools test again expecting the drive to pass with marked bad sectors. However it failed yet again

So now I don't know whether I can trust this drive or not. Windows says it's OK, Seagate says the opposite! Any thoughts?

 

Hey Earthling...

Have you looked over the SMART data? Knowing you I am sure you have, but I just thought I would ask. With multiple bad sectors I would expect to see some pretty raunchy SMART numbers.

More or less a noob at this, but to attempt to provide an answer to your question, I guess I would say neither are my favorite, and I'm not sure I trust either one implicitly. I used SeaTools a handfull of times, and I was sort of skeptical about the results, partly because they didn't seem to match with the SMART data as I expected they would. In this case, we're talking about well used drives with mediocre SMART data and which were then reported as passing with no bad clusters in SeaTools (opposite result of your tests). The test was fast, but I just wasn't sure how thorough. Also, I didn't care for the data presentation of the software, AND I got this nagging feeling working with the program that it was at least in part designed to sell drives. I hate that from a diagnostics program. Makes me elbow sore.

That said, I think of the MS tools sort of this way. If you are satisfied MS' solutions in your OS for defragging, scheduling, and backup, then chkdsk should I think would be good enough for you. I guess that means I would say that if it hasn't been improved post XP (the OS I use), then I would say chkdsk is not for me when it's time for a real drive test or test/repair.

I am interested that you brought this up. I made a herewhence unnamed boot disk back before I knew of the angst there is for the tool, but a drive test tool called HDDScan 3.0...(Here):

http://www.majorgeeks.com/files/details/hddscan_for_windows.html

in that disk is I think the best one I have used so far. Haven't used it lately, preferring to go with SMART data and just try to keep up with the general health of the drives. Great cluster rating reports and graphics in that tool though...

Been tinkering with the idea of installing HDDScan on the PC, but I don't know what I would use for repairing damaged clusters. Mentioned tool doesn't perform cluster repairs. I guess I have been avoiding asking myself this question, since I really don't care too much for chkdsk /R or anything else in MS' maintenance package for XP. Would like to find a really great all in one program with lots of cool reports and graphics for disk cluster health diagnostics and then with repair too...OK, yes, let's throw in SMART monitoring while we're at it LOL...

 

Both are indicating the same thing. The drive is failing. SeaTools isn't going to ignore the bad sectors I don't think regardless of how windows marks them.

Windows found irreparable sectors and while it marked them as unwritable, it is usually a physical device failure that is causing it in the first place.

 

Thanks guys. It seems Adrynalyne is right, it's on the way out. I've been testing it in HD Tune but it is unable to complete the tests. Don't know much about hardware really so much of the SMART data goes over my head, but there are a couple of warnings about the reallocated sector count. It's well backed up but time for a replacement it seems.

Here's the SMART data from HD Tune. It runs hot because it's in a caddy.

 

I'd like to believe the drive maker's tools are more accurate but, that said, I notice SeaTools hasn't been updated often. Despite every new generation of hard drives comes with "new! improved!" hype claims, Seagate still leaves the same ol' version of SeaTools as it's diagnostics tool. Hmmm...

 

Some guidance please. Below is the result of my HD Tune test. It's noticeable that all the bad sectors are towards the 'end' of the drive so maybe partitioning the drive would isolate the problem completely. Should I shorten the existing partition from the 'back' or from the 'front'? I have the necessary tools, just need help understanding at which end the problem is.

HD Tune Pro: ST3320820AS Error Scan

Scanned data : 319 gB
Damaged Blocks : 0.4 %
Elapsed Time : 1:20:32
1 Error at 291401 MB (LBA 596789612)
2 Error at 291401 MB (LBA 596790380)
3 Error at 291401 MB (LBA 596791020)
4 Error at 291519 MB (LBA 597031020)
5 Error at 298828 MB (LBA 612001550)
6 Error at 299390 MB (LBA 613151910)
7 Error at 299390 MB (LBA 613152550)
8 Error at 299733 MB (LBA 613853618)
9 Error at 302284 MB (LBA 619078442)
10 Error at 302285 MB (LBA 619079722)


TIA

 

Hi my friend , you can also run this tool :wave

http://www.majorgeeks.com/files/details/hard_disk_sentinel.html

 

Earthling...

I was looking over your SMART data and I decided to check the bulletin board of HDDScan for information on the program and to see if I could understand the SMART better. If it helps, your Current Pending Sector and Reallocated Sector Count show as 100(%). These numbers are 100 is best, which is good, but the number confused me somewhat. Anyway, from what I read, manufacturers will allow for a maximum of say 2000 or 4000 bad sectors before absolutely under all circumstances recommending the drive be replaced. You have 26 bads and 8 pending, and this hasn't even pushed the number to 99 in either case. This is because the number is prorated based on the manufacturer's recommended maximum of reallocations (again 2000 or 4000 or whatever) for the drive to be replaced (which would yield a 0 reading where the 100 is showing). So, if the absolute max is 4000 bads to get a 0, 40 would drop the 100 to 99 and 80 to 98 and so on. Just thought I would pass this on in case you hadn't ever run across any detailed information on how those two SMART numbers read...

Sorry no help with sector locations. If you find out someplace else, peas pass the peas (pass on the info)...

 

I've promised myself a number of times that I will try to understand SMART data but that's gone the way of most new year resolutions - nowhere

Anyway I took the view that high LBA numbers meant the end of the drive as displayed in partitioning programs, and this is supported by the used portion of the drive always being shown at the start. So I took the bull by the horns and shrunk the partition by 15GB and CHKDSK is saying it's error free. I guess drive testing programs such as HD Tune will continue to show the bad sectors regardless of partitioning but as long as further deterioration doesn't occur, which if Adrynalyne is correct it will, it shouldn't affect me operationally.

This is an old but much loved and used box and I don't want to start spending a lot on it, so all I can do now I know that there may be a problem is monitor its health. Thanks for taking an interest.