[Solved] Interpreting Crystal Disk Info Results: Reallocated Sectors Count and Disk Efficiency

Hello, I have a question as in the subject, how are the numbers of reallocated sectors and disk efficiency really? I have several disks and after scanning Crystal Disk Info, on one, for example, the values are 100/100/36 (current, worst, threshold) and a yellow warning message, and on another the same values and everything is fine, on another value 200/ 200/90 and that's fine too, so what's correct and what's not because I'm a bit confused already?
I'll post the entire scan from CrystalDiskInfo below:
(I mean mainly the 2nd 250GB disk in what condition)

https://www.elektroda.pl/rtvforum/topic1467175.html

You have 4 columns:
1. Value (Current - as much as it is at the moment), it is a converted value, it is compared to the value of the Treshold column - the closer it is, usually decreasing, the worse it is.
2. Worst - Worst recorded parameter value ever occurred, shown in converted units.
3. Threshold (Threshold value, Threshold) - this is the limit value of a given parameter, set by the manufacturer, expressed in converted units. The closer Current gets to Treshold, the worse it gets.
These three columns are most often the basis for interpreting programs.
4. RAW value (Raw) - raw value of the given parameter. Its interpretation belongs to the user, who should know what values of specific parameters (high/low) mean the efficiency/inefficiency of a given disk (model/manufacturer/series).
In practice, if a disk has any reallocated sectors, then due to the inability to verify whether they are logical or physical (reallocation is considered an irreversible process), it is better to assume that the disk is physical, i.e. that the disk is damaged. If there are only unstable sectors - it should be verified unequivocally whether they are operational or not. The raw value of the Reallocated Sectors parameter on almost all drives (there are a few exceptions) is initially 0 and increases as the drive degrades.
The second thing is problems with the power supply and data cable connection - they will be manifested by: logical damage, problems with axis startup, DMA mode errors, so in the case of these, before focusing on the disk, check its connections.
The third thing is scanning - if we have significant delays in readings, which cannot be repaired, then the disk can be considered damaged.
It is worth knowing that detached fragments of the magnetic surface of the platter will cause further damage (when the disk is already damaged, its degradation will probably proceed) with the risk of damage to the heads (then data will only be recovered by the HDD Recovery laboratory) and a broken head may lead to this (arm scratching the plate) that little can be recovered. Therefore, you should not wait to replace the drive if you find damage.

Details on the meaning of individual SMART parameters are already provided in the link from migol21, this and other information is also publicly available on the Internet.

Thank you for the answers and I have already read some of it, now I have completed the information on this subject, but I still do not understand why in one case the same parameters are considered as ATTENTION! and yellow 100/100/36, and in another even higher not alarmed at all as if everything was fine 200/200/140?
Is it that the proportion is greater, i.e. 100/100/36, i.e. the threshold value is 36 and the highest is 100, so 100 : 36 = 2.7, and in the case of the second disk 200/200/140, the threshold value is 140, so 200 : 140 = 1.43 and the lower parameter comes out and no alarm, is that more or less how it works? Only this theory of mine breaks in the case of another disk where it does not show any comments with the same parameters 100/100/36?

AMD1600 wrote:

Thank you for your answers and I have already read some of it, now I have completed the information on this subject, but I still do not understand why in one case the same parameters are considered as ATTENTION! and yellow 100/100/36, and in another even higher not alarmed at all as if everything was fine 200/200/140?
Is it that the proportion is greater, i.e. 100/100/36, i.e. the threshold value is 36 and the highest is 100, so 100 : 36 = 2.7, and in the case of the second disk 200/200/140, the threshold value is 140, so 200 : 140 = 1.43 and the lower parameter comes out and no alarm, is that more or less how it works? Only this theory of mine breaks in the case of another disk where it does not show any comments with the same parameters 100/100/36?

NO. 100/100/36 - as the disk health deteriorates, it will be, for example: 90/90/36 - this will be reported as a warning, up to 36/36/36 - where it will be reported as a critical condition.

So it follows that as long as the critical values do not fall to the threshold value, the disk will work properly and does not require replacement, and yellow messages are only warnings that some events have occurred, but the disk can work properly without failures many more years, only a red critical error qualifies the drive for replacement?

And the second thing, the closer the value is to the threshold, it means that the place of the safe area, where data from bad sectors can be transferred, decreases, and reaching the state 36/36/36 is like filling this place completely and another error bad sector, won't it be moved where?

Read with understanding what I wrote previously - 1 damage = another one soon.

Only one thing conflicts with what you write and what is in the description of migol21.
He has with:
"Attribute ID 05 ( 05 )
Reallocated Sectors Count
Number of relocated sectors. When a drive encounters a read/write/verification error, it marks that sector as relocated and moves the data to a special reserved area (reserve area). This process is also referred to as remapping and the relocated sectors are referred to as remaps. This is why, on modern drives, we don't see "bad blocks" during surface tests
Critical: Yes (The lower the value, the better) "

so it follows that 100/100/36 is worse than 90/90/36,
and you write that the value decreases, i.e. 90/90/36 and so on downwards, it gets worse, in the end which information is true, because it seems contradictory to me?


ps.
Yes, I read it again and again and it follows that the threshold value is not constant, it only increases with disk damage, i.e. as if both of you are right because the lower the threshold value, the better, and the current and worst values are, after all, the values converted in relative to the threshold right?

Please check if the disk is still usable.

Please check this disk

Disk damaged. To exchange. Nothing will help him anymore.
Regards

Hello. Old topic, but it got me. I have a problem with the lenovo G570 laptop, the laptop freezes, restarts, is slow, and sometimes does not want to start. I did a disk test to see if it could be because of it.

kisiol wrote:

Hello. Old topic, but it got me. I have a problem with the lenovo G570 laptop, the laptop freezes, restarts, is slow, and sometimes does not want to start. I did a disk test to see if it could be because of it.

Yes.

Thanks, I'm ordering a second one.

HP 15-cc501NW laptop
There was a problem like @kisiol



Does the above data show that the disk needs to be replaced?
Regards

Although SMART is not always enough to decide whether to replace the drive and in the case of a different model I would ask you for additional tests, observation of behavior and verification that parameter 05 does not increase, but this model is an extremely unsuccessful design, so yes - replace it as soon as possible.

kaleron wrote:

Although SMART is not always enough to decide whether to replace the drive and in the case of a different model I would ask you for additional tests, observation of behavior and verification that parameter 05 does not increase, but this model is an extremely unsuccessful design, so yes - replace it as soon as possible.

I copied 8 GB of data to the drive
This is what it looks like after the operation



please rate

Well, we have an increase in the number of reallocated sectors in a very short time -> replacement before it completely fails.

kaleron wrote:

Well, we have an increase in the number of reallocated sectors in a very short time -> replacement before it completely fails.

Thank you
I'm looking for an SSD then
Will the Crucial MX500 512 be a good option?

Added after 51 [seconds]:

komputerowiec79 wrote:

Additionally, BF. I recommend handling the discs more carefully and gently.

Child's laptop