Question Does this disk look okay to use?

Jul 20, 2021
23
0
10
0
SMART Attributes Data Structure revision number: 16
Vendor Specific SMART Attributes with Thresholds:
ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAGS VALUE WORST THRESH FAIL RAW_VALUE
1 Raw_Read_Error_Rate POSR-K 200 200 051 - 3
3 Spin_Up_Time POS--K 140 137 021 - 3958
4 Start_Stop_Count -O--CK 097 097 000 - 3728
5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct PO--CK 200 200 140 - 0
7 Seek_Error_Rate -OSR-K 200 200 000 - 0
9 Power_On_Hours -O--CK 077 077 000 - 16861
10 Spin_Retry_Count -O--CK 100 100 000 - 0
11 Calibration_Retry_Count -O--CK 100 100 000 - 0
12 Power_Cycle_Count -O--CK 097 097 000 - 3726
192 Power-Off_Retract_Count -O--CK 200 200 000 - 383
193 Load_Cycle_Count -O--CK 199 199 000 - 3344
194 Temperature_Celsius -O---K 104 086 000 - 39
196 Reallocated_Event_Count -O--CK 200 200 000 - 0
197 Current_Pending_Sector -O--CK 200 200 000 - 0
198 Offline_Uncorrectable ----CK 200 200 000 - 1
199 UDMA_CRC_Error_Count -O--CK 200 200 000 - 0
200 Multi_Zone_Error_Rate ---R-- 200 200 000 - 0

Is there anyway to force relocate the bad sectors?
 
There is one sector which failed a background scan (offline uncorrectable), but no sector has been marked for reallocation (current pending = 0).

I think the CHKDSK equivalent for Linux is fsck. That said, CHKDSK should not be run against a drive with a head/media fault. That's because CHKDSK cares more about preserving file system consistency than it does about preserving your data. I expect that the same caveat would apply to fsck.
 
I think the CHKDSK equivalent for Linux is fsck. That said, CHKDSK should not be run against a drive with a head/media fault. That's because CHKDSK cares more about preserving file system consistency than it does about preserving your data. I expect that the same caveat would apply to fsck.
Then what's your take on the /r flag, which Microsoft states:
Locates bad sectors and recovers readable information. The disk must be locked. /r includes the functionality of /f, with the additional analysis of physical disk errors.
 
There are numerous threads at Reddit which attest to the damage done by CHKDSK.

See https:// www.reddit.com/r/datarecovery/comments/nehvta/need_help_lost_all_the_files_on_my_wd_hard_disk/

Then you have the people running chkdsk on mechanically damaged drives, which it really looks like yours is. Chkdsk is a file system consistency checker and fixer. It it doesn't even attempt to diagnose the physical health of the drive before it starts trying to fix things. If you have data that is unreadable because of a physical defect, chkdsk doesn't understand the difference between that and simple corruption. The problem then is that fixing data that is in a damaged location will just write new garbage onto the drive, and that you come out with a situation even worse than it was before.
 
Jul 20, 2021
23
0
10
0
There is one sector which failed a background scan (offline uncorrectable), but no sector has been marked for reallocation (current pending = 0).

I think the CHKDSK equivalent for Linux is fsck. That said, CHKDSK should not be run against a drive with a head/media fault. That's because CHKDSK cares more about preserving file system consistency than it does about preserving your data. I expect that the same caveat would apply to fsck.
Thanks for your answer. I though fsck was used to check the filesystem for errors though?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS