Question SMART 's output - How healthy is harddisk ?

[hakaru_eitara]

Hello,
This is my main internal hard drive, which has been working for over 10 years.
I read that several SMART attributes are the most important indicators of a drive's health and those are showing fine with green check mark in software.. Although Sentinel (HDSentinel) reports it as 100% healthy, I am still worried.
I plan to replace it with a new HDD soon, instead of the DVD-ROM.
NOTE: If the lines are jumbled, I will upload images from txt file.

 Hard Disk Summary
   -------------------
    Hard Disk Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 0
    Interface  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : S-ATA II
    Disk Controller  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : Standard SATA AHCI Controller (AHCI) [VEN: 8086, DEV: 1C03] Version: 10.0.******6-21-2006
    Disk Location  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : Bus Number 0, Target Id 0, LUN 0
    Hard Disk Model ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : ST***420AS
    Firmware Revision  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 0002SDM1
    Hard Disk Serial Number  . . . . . . . . . . . . : 5*********
    Total Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 715402 MB
    Power State  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : Active
    Device Type  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : Fixed Disk
    Logical Drive(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : ********
    Current Temperature  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 36 °C
    Maximum Temperature (Ever Measured)  . . . . . . : 46 °C, 5/11/2025 6:43:05 PM
    Minimum Temperature (Ever Measured)  . . . . . . : 21 °C, 12/21/2024 9:45:53 PM
    Maximum Temperature (During Entire Lifespan) . . : 48 °C
    Power On Time  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 1879 days, 0 hours
    Estimated Remaining Lifetime . . . . . . . . . . : more than 100 days
    Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : #################### 100 % (Excellent)
    Performance  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : #################### 100 % (Excellent)

    The hard disk status is PERFECT. Problematic or weak sectors were not found and there are no spin up or data transfer errors.
    The disk drive reached the end of the designed lifetime. Chance of sudden, unforeseen failure is higher.
    In a critical system, it is recommended to consider replacement.
      No actions needed.

    ATA Information
   -----------------
    Hard Disk Cylinders  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 1453521
    Hard Disk Heads  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 16
    Hard Disk Sectors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 63
    ATA Revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : ATA8-ACS version 4
    Transport Version  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : SATA Rev 2.6
    Total Sectors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 183143646
    Bytes Per Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 4096 [Advanced Format]
    Buffer Size  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 16384 KB
    Multiple Sectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 16
    Error Correction Bytes . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 4
    Unformatted Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 715405 MB
    Maximum PIO Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 4
    Maximum Multiword DMA Mode . . . . . . . . . . . : 2
    Maximum UDMA Mode  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 300 MB/s (6)
    Active UDMA Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 300 MB/s (5)
    Minimum Multiword DMA Transfer Time  . . . . . . : 120 ns
    Recommended Multiword DMA Transfer Time  . . . . : 120 ns
    Minimum PIO Transfer Time Without IORDY  . . . . : 120 ns
    Minimum PIO Transfer Time With IORDY . . . . . . : 120 ns
    ATA Control Byte . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : Valid
    ATA Checksum Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : Valid

  Disk Information
   ------------------
    Disk Family  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : Momentus 7200.5 750420
    Form Factor  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 2.5"
    Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 750 GB (750 x 1,000,000,000 bytes)
    Number Of Disks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 2
    Number Of Heads  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 4
    Rotational Speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 7200 RPM
    Rotation Time  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 8.33 ms
    Average Rotational Latency . . . . . . . . . . . : 4.17 ms
    Disk Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : Serial-ATA/300
    Buffer-Host Max. Rate  . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 300 MB/seconds
    Buffer Size  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 16384 KB
    Drive Ready Time (Typical) . . . . . . . . . . . : 4.5 seconds
    Average Seek Time  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 11.0 ms
    Track To Track Seek Time . . . . . . . . . . . . : 1.5 ms
    Full Stroke Seek Time  . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 22.0 ms
    Width  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 69.9 mm (2.8 inch)
    Depth  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 100.4 mm (4.0 inch)
    Height . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 9.5 mm (0.4 inch)
    Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 115 grams (0.3 pounds)
    Acoustic (Idle)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 2.3 Bel
    Acoustic (Min Performance And Volume)  . . . . . : 2.5 Bel
    Acoustic (Max Performance And Volume)  . . . . . : 3.0 Bel
    Required Power For Spinup  . . . . . . . . . . . : 1,200 mA
    Power Required (Seek)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 2.4 W
    Power Required (Idle)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 1.2 W
    Power Required (Standby) . . . . . . . . . . . . : 0.4 W
    Manufacturer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : Seagate Technology
    Manufacturer Website . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/products

 

[hakaru_eitara]

 

[hakaru_eitara]

Sorry I couldn't post SMART 's output organized and tidy in one line
Several lines from output :
Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : #################### 100 % (Excellent)
Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . .: #################### 100 % (Excellent)

The hard disk status is PERFECT. Problematic or weak sectors were not found and there are no spin up or data transfer errors.
The disk drive reached the end of the designed lifetime. Chance of sudden, unforeseen failure is higher.
In a critical system, it is recommended to consider replacement.
No actions needed.

 

[rgd1101]

always backup your important data

 

[hakaru_eitara]

always backup your important data

I do , but my question was something else. Thank you for your response

 

[fzabkar]

Those "error" rates are sector counts and seek counts, not error counts.

Seagate SMART Attribute Specification:
http://t1.daumcdn.net/brunch/service/user/axm/file/zRYOdwPu3OMoKYmBOby1fEEQEbU.pdf

Normal SATA SMART Attribute Behavior (Seagate):
http://t1.daumcdn.net/brunch/service/user/axm/file/Vw3RJSZllYbDc86ssL6bofiL4r0.pdf

Seagate's Seek Error Rate, Raw Read Error Rate, and Hardware ECC Recovered SMART attributes:
https://www.hddoracle.com/viewtopic.php?p=105#p105

IMHO, CrystalDiskInfo displays the attributes more appropriately (in hexadecimal format).

https://crystalmark.info/en/software/crystaldiskinfo/

 

[hakaru_eitara]

Those "error" rates are sector counts and seek counts, not error counts.

Seagate SMART Attribute Specification:
http://t1.daumcdn.net/brunch/service/user/axm/file/zRYOdwPu3OMoKYmBOby1fEEQEbU.pdf

Normal SATA SMART Attribute Behavior (Seagate):
http://t1.daumcdn.net/brunch/service/user/axm/file/Vw3RJSZllYbDc86ssL6bofiL4r0.pdf

Seagate's Seek Error Rate, Raw Read Error Rate, and Hardware ECC Recovered SMART attributes:
https://www.hddoracle.com/viewtopic.php?p=105#p105

IMHO, CrystalDiskInfo displays the attributes more appropriately (in hexadecimal format).

https://crystalmark.info/en/software/crystaldiskinfo/

Hello
I check all your link
May I ask your opinion for this SMART attributes ,? Is drive healthy or there is a room for concern ?

 

[hakaru_eitara]

Normal SATA SMART Attribute Behavior (Seagate):
http://t1.daumcdn.net/brunch/service/user/axm/file/Vw3RJSZllYbDc86ssL6bofiL4r0.pdf

I checked this first
SMART of my hardware is awful

 

[hakaru_eitara]

I read that several SMART attributes are important not all, hence , immediately I should think for backup

 

[fzabkar]

Your drive is perfectly healthy. Only the G-Sense Error Rate is off.

For example, the drive has executed 1,421,596,528 seeks without a single error.

 

[evermorex76]

The "data" column is not usually human-readable information. You can't look at that and think "oh my god so many errors". The other columns are meant to let you read them, though they can be confusing as some may go DOWN to indicate a problem while others may go UP. They are more like a relative value than an absolute number, or a percentage. And any line that is "always passing" literally means it's just an information field that either has nothing to do with the actual health or can't be used to predict failure directly. Some of the others that don't say always passing may also not be directly useful in determining health, like the Drive Power Cycle Count; those entries are more for showing how much usage a drive has gotten, how long it's been running, how often it goes to sleep or is turned off and has to spin back up (which can wear out the motor/bearings), load/unload cycles (which can sometimes be compared to the rating in the spec sheet for a drive), that sort of thing.

If the drive is working fine, and software reports that the SMART data shows it's healthy, then you're freaking out for no reason. You're just seeking out problems. Ten years IS a long time for a hard drive to be running, though, and you are now at the "on borrowed time" part of its life, but if you have good backups then you could just keep using the drive and simply be prepared to replace it if it fails and restore the backup. (Image-based full backups to an external drive are best, as you can then simply restore everything to the state it was in as of the last backup, which should normally be every night, without having to reinstall anything. At most you might lose several hours of changes. There are plenty of threads here and elsewhere along with review articles with recommendations for software to use.)

If the Power On Time Count value of 45096 is an accurate readable number, then it's only actually been turned on for about 5 of those years, making it not so extremely old in terms of actual usage. CrystalDiskInfo will show what the actual power-on time is as an information field at the top, so you can confirm the actual number of hours as well as how many TB of data have been written over the life of the drive. Mechanical drives don't have the same issue with limited write endurance that SSDs have, but an extremely high amount of data being written could wear out the material of the platters as well as wearing out the actuator.

Also, unless you need a high capacity but absolutely can only afford the minimum cost, get a SATA SSD instead of another mechanical drive. That appears to be only a 750GB drive, and you can get a 1TB SATA SSD for $50 on Amazon. That's hardly even more expensive than a mechanical drive, and the SSD would make what may be an older PC seem almost new again in performance.

 

[USAFRet]

"how healthy" is not really knowable.

I've mentioned this before, but I had a seemingly perfect drive go from 100% working, to dead dead dead in about 36 hours.
It was 5 weeks old.

Another, from 0 bad sectors to over 14k in about a week.
16TB Toshiba Enterprise, 7 months old.

I have other drives that are near 20 years old.


Backups need to start happening on Day 1. Not just when you think there might be an issue.

 

[hakaru_eitara]

@fzabkar
@evermorex76
@USAFRet

Thank you for your response.
.

I have several doubts about SMART, and I’d appreciate it if you could correct me if I’m misunderstanding anything.

1. Is it normal for some SMART attributes to increase after using an external HDD for one to two hours?(This has already explained I think)sorry for duplicate

2. Tonight, I plugged in a new external hard drive that had been used for less than an hour. I transferred data from my main hard drive to it, which took about one to two hours. Afterward, I checked its SMART attributes and some of them increased.

I safely removed the external HDD via icon tray , but I preferred to shut down my system before unplugging it. However, my laptop (Windows 10) took an unusually long time to shut down—around five minutes.

During shutdown, the fan was working heavily. After the system completely shut down, the HDD’s LED kept blinking for several seconds, and I might have heard a sound.

My question is: I safely removed the HDD, so why was it still blinking after the system shut down?

3-While I was copying files into new external HDD , often not always I was hearing sound(I believe this sound is normal) but why new hdd which has worked under 2 hours should make sound ?

If the Power On Time Count value of 45096 is an accurate readable number, then it's only actually been turned on for about 5

How you converted 45096 to 5 years ? Did you do :: 45096/(365×24hours) ~= 5 years ?

SATA SSD instead of another

And could I use it instead of DVD-ROM ?



Thank you 🙏

 

[USAFRet]

I’m still a bit confused and worried.

Use the drive until it dies.

Keep good backups until it does.

 

[evermorex76]

I have several doubts about SMART, and I’d appreciate it if you could correct me if I’m misunderstanding anything.

1) Yes, some attributes change constantly up and down, and some go up constantly. Even some "error" values are normal because they are momentary values, not a counter that tracks an increasing number, and various things cause electrical devices to lose a signal sometimes. The drives are designed to mitigate those errors. Other values should not ever change unless there is a problem.

2) Some motherboards supply power to certain USB ports even when you've turned it "off". Remember that ATX uses soft-off, where electricity is still flowing in some components which allows the use of a cheap momentary power switch instead of the ancient clunky switches like on the IBM AT PCs, and allows the PC to have features like sleep mode and wake-on-LAN. I've never seen a drive that continued being powered like that before but I'd assume that's all that was happening, and the PC saw after several seconds that there was no device that needed power so it turned off the port. If you'd had a phone plugged in, the port would stay live to charge it. Without knowing what values you saw increasing we can't say if they were normal or indicated a problem, and unless you consistently see that long shutdown time only with that drive plugged in you don't know if that was the cause.

3) Mechanical drives do make noises during operation, but without hearing it we can't tell you if they sound normal. If it's a repetitive clicking sound then the drive could be defective, as the actuator arm fails to load the heads onto the platters, but then you wouldn't be able to use the drive at all. If the data transfer rate is extremely low that could also indicate a fault, along with errors in the SMART values.

Yes that's how I determined the years of powered-on time. And a DVD-ROM is completely different from an SSD or hard drive. DVD-ROM just lets you read CD and DVD optical disks. You need to keep that plugged in if you need to use that type of disc. An SSD is another type of storage that can replace your mechanical hard drive. A SATA 2.5 inch model plugs into the same power and data cables that your hard drive uses. You can temporarily use the cables from your DVD-ROM drive to clone the data from your HDD to the SSD if you don't have extra connections, and then remove the HDD. (Or just replace the HDD with the SSD and then restore from backup.) This model is a good value from a top-tier brand. If your PC case doesn't have mounting slots for a 2.5 inch drive, it's generally okay to let it just rest on a non-moving surface inside as long as the case doesn't get moved around much, or you can get an adapter to let it fit in the 3.5 inch slot. (Note that the screws used on an SSD are the finer thread like those used on an optical drive, not the coarse thread used on HDDs.)

https://www.amazon.com/Crucial-BX500-NAND-2-5-Inch-Internal/dp/B07YD579WM

 

[fzabkar]

I have several doubts about SMART, and I’d appreciate it if you could correct me if I’m misunderstanding anything.

1. Is it normal for some SMART attributes to increase after using an external HDD for one to two hours?(This has already explained I think)sorry for duplicate

2. Tonight, I plugged in a new external hard drive that had been used for less than an hour. I transferred data from my main hard drive to it, which took about one to two hours. Afterward, I checked its SMART attributes and some of them increased.

You are seeing normal behaviour for a healthy drive.

If you read my tutorial, you will see that the raw value for the Seek Error Rate counts the total number of lifetime seeks in the lower 32 bits. When a drive is operating, it will execute seek requests, and each seek will increment the raw value of the Seek Error Rate. The seek errors will be reported in the upper 16 bits.

The Read Error Rate works a little differently. It is a rolling average rather than a cumulative lifetime attribute. The drive reads 250,000 sectors and records the number of read errors. The raw value reports the number of sectors that have been read. When this number reaches 250,000, it rolls over to 0 and starts counting up again. The normalised value is a logarithmic representation of the error rate. A value of 120 is a perfect score.

In short, it is normal for these raw values to increase over time. That's the way it is designed to work. It's all explained in Seagate's specification documents.

 

[hakaru_eitara]

If the data transfer rate is extremely low that could also indicate a fault, along with errors in the SMART values.

Hello and thanks for your response
No, speed had fluctuated between few KB(for several seconds) to 70-80-90 MB but average speed was around 20-30 MB

Without knowing what values you saw increasing we can't say if they were normal or indicated a problem

and

To summarize (Sorry for bad image quality) :
Disk shaft was increased (maybe to 4) as I remember .

-May I ask you indication of which attributes is more important ?
As you mentioned, some of the attributes fluctuate, which is natural behavior. Also, the SMART data indicates that certain attributes do not directly impact the overall condition of the drive.

-How often should I check the HDD's SMART status if the drive is stored in a dry, stable location with normal temperature and humidity?

-I need to get either a 2.5-inch internal HDD or internal SSD to replace my DVD-ROM drive?


thank you

 

[hakaru_eitara]

If you read my tutorial, you will see that the raw value for the Seek Error Rate counts the total number of lifetime seeks in the lower 32 bits. When a drive is operating, it will execute seek requests, and each seek will increment the raw value of the Seek Error Rate. The seek errors will be reported in the upper 16 bits

Hello and thanks for your response
Yes I did
I get your point . thank you

 

[evermorex76]

All of those values are fine. There's no indication that there is anything wrong. I've never even seen the ones like Disk Shift and Load Friction before, so they're obviously not particularly important. Seagate may have used them a long time ago and phased them out. A disk could "shift" slightly due to thermal expansion or vibration, but as long as the heads are still able to follow the tracks and it's not causing the platters to make contact with the heads, it's not a problem. There was a thread here a few years ago about that value.

[SOLVED] - Toshiba Disk Shift values - are they accurate and do they matter?

This is posted in reference to an older thread - link here - but tldr; I have two N300 8TB drives and the Disk Shift value seems to go from hundreds of thousands to tens of millions. Reading about these SMART value makes me concerned as none of my other drives have them, but the consensus seems...

forums.tomshardware.com

You don't seem to have run benchmarks like AS SSD or ATTO to test the maximum throughput, but if it's reaching 80MBps in general stuff like file transfers from partition to partition, then that sounds fine. It's normal for Windows file copies and stuff to vary from kilobytes per second up to maximum speed because Windows doesn't handle the process very well.

You didn't mention what type of machine this is in, and I only just now found the line indicating the drive model, which is from 2010. 119MBps was the max benchmark in the Tom's Hardware review of the drive (note that if you benchmark yours, it will probably be less because you already have data on it which may take up the fastest tracks). It's only a 2.5 inch drive, so is this in a laptop or small form factor desktop?

But as I said, you don't seem to actually be experiencing problems, but wanted to check, and SMART says the drive is perfectly healthy despite its age, so don't worry about it. You can use it until it dies, or go ahead and replace it now. A SATA SSD would be a perfect replacement for that drive since it's a 2.5 inch model, but if the computer it's in is that old you're at the point of other components potentially failing, too, and it's obviously not a top performer anymore. You might want to consider a new machine, unless your usage is very limited.

I recommended a 1TB SSD based on the size, but if you actually are using almost the full capacity of the current drive and will want to keep all that data on the new drive, you'd want to get a 2TB SSD. Filling up an SSD causes performance to drop significantly, even down to less than a mechanical drive sometimes. With the model I recommended, cloning 700GB to it would make it as close to full as you'd ever want it to be.

A mechanical drive that just sits in a drawer could last 10 years, or could develop a problem in 2 years, just like in operation. The music industry recently discovered that a large number of their drives containing master recordings that were archived had failed in less than 10 years despite being in controlled environments. Plugging it in and running a full SMART self-test once a year wouldn't be a bad idea even for new drives being used as archives. Your drive is already 10 years old (or even 14 depending on manufacture date) and has been actively powered on for half of that time, so it's far more likely to suddenly fail or develop bad sectors, and you wouldn't want to particularly depend on it once you stop using it in your PC. It wouldn't hurt to stick it in a drawer in case you think you might need to recover a file from it, but you wouldn't want that to be the sole location for anything critical. Or you could use it as an extra backup drive or for transferring files, or storing things temporarily that don't need fast access.

Again, your DVD-ROM is not being replaced.

 

[kanewolf]

I do , but my question was something else. Thank you for your response

Your root question is "how safe is my data, if I use this drive". You should assume that EVERY drive will fail in the next hour and plan accordingly. Why? Because it IS possible. If you haven't planned then it doesn't matter what the SMART stats say. You are probably going to lose data at some point.

 

[evermorex76]

You are probably going to lose data at some point.

Statistically I'd bet that the vast majority of people never lose data due to failed drives, despite having no backups of any kind (ignoring default OneDrive syncs and the like). The failure rate of all drives produced is pretty low, and most mechanical drives fail either pretty early or only after a very long life. Most people don't keep their computers for such long periods as 10+ years. Some will fail early (probably less than half the total failure rate), and the rest end up getting replaced in that in-between period when the drives are in their most reliable period.

SSDs of course have a different pattern for how they fail, where heavy write activity has a greater effect on lifespan than with a mechanical drive, but with "mainstream" usage the pattern should still hold true where they fail early due to defects but otherwise last through the warranty period and in most cases even longer because the TBW rating is far above normal usage rates.

That's not to say that individuals can't have a drive fail, or have terrible luck and lose multiple drives. My stepfather bought an HP PC in 2018 and a couple of years later the Seagate mechanical drive failed. They took it to a local shop where it was replaced with another Seagate, and 3 years later that drive failed. Seagate is kind of known for having a higher failure rate than others, and a lot of OEMs use them because they cost less, so looking at customers with Seagate drives will skew the perception of how often drives fail. (I worked at an MSP re-selling Dell machines, and if a client bought 10 Dell business PCs it was guaranteed that we'd be replacing one of those crappy Seagate drives each year.)

So yeah, statistically you won't lose any data if you don't have backups. But statistically you also won't have a heart attack or cancer, or suffer a major injury, or be in an accident that totals your car, or have your luggage lost while traveling, but you still want to have insurance for those things (if you can afford it). Backups are just insurance on your data and the odds are vastly in favor of never needing it.

 

[USAFRet]

Statistically I'd bet that the vast majority of people never lose data due to failed drives, despite having no backups of any kind (ignoring default OneDrive syncs and the like). The failure rate of all drives produced is pretty low, and most mechanical drives fail either pretty early or only after a very long life. Most people don't keep their computers for such long periods as 10+ years. Some will fail early (probably less than half the total failure rate), and the rest end up getting replaced in that in-between period when the drives are in their most reliable period.

SSDs of course have a different pattern for how they fail, where heavy write activity has a greater effect on lifespan than with a mechanical drive, but with "mainstream" usage the pattern should still hold true where they fail early due to defects but otherwise last through the warranty period and in most cases even longer because the TBW rating is far above normal usage rates.

That's not to say that individuals can't have a drive fail, or have terrible luck and lose multiple drives. My stepfather bought an HP PC in 2018 and a couple of years later the Seagate mechanical drive failed. They took it to a local shop where it was replaced with another Seagate, and 3 years later that drive failed. Seagate is kind of known for having a higher failure rate than others, and a lot of OEMs use them because they cost less, so looking at customers with Seagate drives will skew the perception of how often drives fail. (I worked at an MSP re-selling Dell machines, and if a client bought 10 Dell business PCs it was guaranteed that we'd be replacing one of those crappy Seagate drives each year.)

So yeah, statistically you won't lose any data if you don't have backups. But statistically you also won't have a heart attack or cancer, or suffer a major injury, or be in an accident that totals your car, or have your luggage lost while traveling, but you still want to have insurance for those things (if you can afford it). Backups are just insurance on your data and the odds are vastly in favor of never needing it.

Backups are not just for recovery in the event of physical drive fail.

Ransomware, accidental deletion, nasty virus, etc, etc.


The majority of people never need car insurance.
But.....

 

[evermorex76]

Backups are not just for recovery in the event of physical drive fail.

Ransomware, accidental deletion, nasty virus, etc, etc.


The majority of people never need car insurance.
But.....

Yes, but @kanewolf was specifically talking about drive failures so that's what I addressed. Backups cover all those things like health insurance covers not just a heart attack but a bone fracture or a sinus infection or nail fungus, and car insurance covers total destruction or a broken windshield or fender bender. (Of course in the US you're better off just dying from the heart attack than living with the costs of what insurance won't cover. US insurance is like having backups that only let you restore half of your data, and you don't get to choose which half. But that's neither here nor there.)

 

[USAFRet]

Yes, but @kanewolf was specifically talking about drive failures so that's what I addressed.

Right, because the OP asked "how safe....", in relation to (misreading) SMART data on that drive.

 

[hakaru_eitara]

All of those values are fine. There's no indication that there is anything wrong. I've never even seen the ones like Disk Shift and Load Friction before, so they're obviously not particularly important. Seagate may have used them a long time ago and phased them out. A disk could "shift" slightly due to thermal expansion or vibration, but as long as the heads are still able to follow the tracks and it's not causing the platters to make contact with the heads, it's not a problem. There was a thread here a few years ago about that value.

Hello and thanks a lot I appreciate your response,
Apologies for speaking a bit confusingly and unclearly.
My original post was about my main harddisk on Laptop.

No actions needed.

This one , I back up some data into another new external harddisk and

and

These two are new external HDD's SMART

shift

Also that was first time I have ever seen , in explanation it says :
Distance of the disk has shifted relative to spindle . Incorrect disk spin can be caused by mechanical shock 😃any way

You didn't mention what type of machine this is in,

Laptop .

You didn't mention what type of machine this is in, and I only just now found the line indicating the drive model, which is from 2010. 119MBps was the max benchmark in the Tom's Hardware review of the drive (note that if you benchmark yours, it will probably be less because you already have data on it which may take up the fastest tracks). It's only a 2.5 inch drive, so is this in a laptop or small form factor desktop?

I didn't test laptop's hdd , it is maximum 20 MB/s I thought .
80 Mb/s os for new external one

Again, your DVD-ROM is not being replaced

I'd like to have two harddrives , for first one keeping in its place , second one in the place of CDROM: something like