Replace HDD with Reallocated Sectors Count flagged?

[bobdoo]

Originally Posted by BearZDefect
Originally Posted by WagonWheel
...
I would go for SSDs as you replace HDDs, much more reliable.

I don't agree. SSDs don't having moving parts like HDDs, but many SSDs fail early, and most HDDs used every day last many years past their prime without a hiccup.

And data stored on SSDs spontaneously degenerates over time, whereas data written to a HDD will still be good many years later unless the HDD is abused by impacts or magnetic fields.

SSD performance is unmatched by HDD. This is why people use SSD for the OS, and HDD for storage of real data.




https://techreport.com/review/27909/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-theyre-all-dead

"The first lesson came quickly. All of the drives surpassed their official endurance specifications by writing hundreds of terabytes without issue. Delivering on the manufacturer-guaranteed write tolerance wouldn't normally be cause for celebration, but the scale makes this achievement important. Most PC users, myself included, write no more than a few terabytes per year. Even 100TB is far more endurance than the typical consumer needs."

https://www.pcworld.com/article/292...se-data-if-left-unplugged-after-all.html

"If you're in a panic because the Internet told you that your shiny new SSD may lose data in "just a few days" when stored in a hot room, take a chill pill—it's apparently all a huge misunderstanding."

 

[emg]

Yeah, I've been using SSDs on and off for the best part of thirty years in desktop and laptop PCs and never managed to kill one by writing too much data to it. I am a little concerned about the potential for a dead disk due to firmware bugs though, which is why I back up important data to a hard drive every month or two.

I buy a new SSD for my laptop every couple of years, then put the old one in my Windows desktop, put the old one from the Windows desktop in the Linux desktop, and put the old one from the Linux desktop in my ancient laptop that I only use while travelling. So the SSDs are up to eight years old by the time I retire them, and the travel laptop can be powered-off for months between trips.

 

[jhellwig]

Originally Posted by emg
Yeah, I've been using SSDs on and off for the best part of thirty years in desktop and laptop PCs and never managed to kill one by writing too much data to it. I am a little concerned about the potential for a dead disk due to firmware bugs though, which is why I back up important data to a hard drive every month or two.

I buy a new SSD for my laptop every couple of years, then put the old one in my Windows desktop, put the old one from the Windows desktop in the Linux desktop, and put the old one from the Linux desktop in my ancient laptop that I only use while travelling. So the SSDs are up to eight years old by the time I retire them, and the travel laptop can be powered-off for months between trips.


Are you a time traveler?

 

[JustinH]

For the op, see if there is a firmware update to the drive, and put it on there.

Also system firmware.

FYI, on consumer warranties, dell will not warranty a SSD drive with predictive failure. Take that how you want to, it may last it may not.

I bought some refurb Munchkin Enterprise SSD drives for my little home server, its been running 3-4 years constantly with zero issues.

 

[emg]

Originally Posted by jhellwig
Are you a time traveler?


SSDs have been around since at least the early 90s, but were insanely expensive at the time (ours cost about the same as a small house, but was free to us on a loan from the manufacturer). Made Windows 3.1 boot real fast.

Edit: Wikipedia claims 1978, but that was before my time.

 

[PandaBear]

Data retention on flash memory these days are real short. Basically if your drive is not powered on, and in room temp, data will be deteriorated in 1 year, and in a hot car, about 1 month.

Mechanical drives in the old days have 5 years as target, maybe shorter these days but still much higher. So for backup I'd still use HDD > SSD.

Speed wise, no comparison, SSD on active working data.

Smart fell shorts because people are scared of imperfect data, and therefore every manufacturer wants to hide the noise until it is no longer noise, and it is too late to be meaningful by then. Smart also doesn't report the biggest problem: design issue, that cannot be measured and predicted ahead of time (or it wouldn't have been a design issue).

 

[jhellwig]

Originally Posted by emg
Originally Posted by jhellwig
Are you a time traveler?


SSDs have been around since at least the early 90s, but were insanely expensive at the time (ours cost about the same as a small house, but was free to us on a loan from the manufacturer). Made Windows 3.1 boot real fast.

Edit: Wikipedia claims 1978, but that was before my time.


That was my guess on how you could have been using them that long. Normal Consumer/ business useage of ssds has only happened in the last 10 years.

 

[boulderdentist]

Just a question. I have a Dell Notebook and Crystal Disk tells me caution with the reallocated sectors, then run Toshiba's diagnostics and it passes. I have a HP desktop and receive same message from Chrystal Disk, caution with reallocated sectors. When I run HP diagnostics it passes. I am starting to question the Crystal Disk program. Should I rely on it, or the manufacturer's test?

Scott

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted by boulderdentist
Just a question. I have a Dell Notebook and Crystal Disk tells me caution with the reallocated sectors, then run Toshiba's diagnostics and it passes. I have a HP desktop and receive same message from Chrystal Disk, caution with reallocated sectors. When I run HP diagnostics it passes. I am starting to question the Crystal Disk program. Should I rely on it, or the manufacturer's test?

Scott


Pass or fail means nothing but whether warranty claims can be done or not.

Check the SMART raw value once in a while. If it is increasing constantly, backup and dump the drive. If it is non zero but stays the same over a few months, don't worry about it.