[SOLVED] Uncorrectable Sector Count: 112

[Appletax]

& current pending sector count: 112 (linked?)

Does that mean that 112 sectors cannot be remapped?

Constant high HDD usage.

Computer is very slow despite being newer with nice specs (7th gen i5, 8GB DDR4).

Put in an SSD with a fresh installation of Windows?

 

[NviGate Systems]

That means you have 112 sectors that have been identified as bad, and are waiting for re-allocation. That won't happen until the sectors are written to, as the firmware assumes data may be needed, so it won't remap until the OS marks the area for deletion by writing to it.

112 is high, replace. The high disk use is Windows trying to read data and having errors most likely. If you check your event log you may see errors related to the disk.

 

[Appletax]

That means you have 112 sectors that have been identified as bad, and are waiting for re-allocation. That won't happen until the sectors are written to, as the firmware assumes data may be needed, so it won't remap until the OS marks the area for deletion by writing to it.

112 is high, replace. The high disk use is Windows trying to read data and having errors most likely. If you check your event log you may see errors related to the disk.

Fresh installation of Windows or clone?

 

[NviGate Systems]

Depends. If user is ok with fresh that is better for stability, you know you are not migrating corrupt files unless it's personal data, in which case can't help that.

 

[Porthos]

I replace with SSD.

 

[nlinecomputers]

ANY hard drive problem is an automatic replacement with me. HDDs are too cheap to mess with, it's faster to clone then the cost of my labor to work with it. SSDs are still more expensive but the massive upgrade in speed is also worth the time there.

 

[Markverhyden]

ANY hard drive problem is an automatic replacement with me. HDDs are too cheap to mess with, it's faster to clone then the cost of my labor to work with it. SSDs are still more expensive but the massive upgrade in speed is also worth the time there.

^^^This. Given the size of drives these days, which means they take much longer to scan/check/data transfer/backup/restore, and the low price it's a no brainer in my book to just replace when there's even the slightest whiff of a drive problem.

 

[NviGate Systems]

Well, yes and no.

You are essentially expecting perfection from your storage media, which just isn't going to happen all the time.

I agree that a large error count does warrant a look, but that is what spare sectors are for. I've seen drives with 10-25 pending and have them re-allocated and drive lives a happy long life until customer recycled machine and got new one.

Now, I serviced both consumer and business, so consumers don't always like to spend money or don't have money to spend, so it's all how you pitch it to them.

Now, if you replace it, and a month later the new drive says 10 pending (say for example you went HDD) what then? The customer is going to start questioning. At least that's what we experienced. Plus getting things RMA wasn't always pretty.

So we always gave customers a choice. Allow the drive to finish it's built in error correction, replace or maybe something else. Often it wasn't our prodding saying "it's broken" and "you have to replace it or your data will die" that got customers to replace, it was our comprehensive options, warranty and support no matter which way we went. That often triggered the "hey I get a new drive and warranty!" feeling and they went for a replacement.

Sometimes it was hard not to be jaded. Because certain systems came in that we knew would fail again, like the time my boss ordered a HP AMD motherboard (refurb) for a customer, had us install it then 4 months later it died. But that's a different story, point is, if you go full throttle being jaded, you can end up costing your customer more. My two cents.

 

[seedubya]

The day of the HDD as the OS drive is done. Replace with an SSD whether problems exist or not.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

ANY hard drive problem is an automatic replacement with me. HDDs are too cheap to mess with, it's faster to clone then the cost of my labor to work with it. ... the massive upgrade in speed is also worth the time there.

^^^ This.

ANY drive problem...especially if it's an old spinner drive...we clone to a new SSD.
Heck if it's an old spinner, the speed increase of an SSD shortens the time you spend working on a computer so if it's still a spinner...clone to SSD...enjoy much shorter time to work on the computer thus a smaller labor bill which will offset or at least partially offset the total price of your work. SSDs are cheap enough these days.

Always worth the attempt to clone. We pretty much hardly ever get a rig returning after cloning a failing drive. If the drive was that tanked to begin with the clone wouldn't complete.

 

[britechguy]

Well, even though I will upgrade to SSD on request (or sometimes suggest it) it's not automatic.

If you just read here (and there are plenty of elsewheres) it's pretty obvious that SSDs have a "fail without any warning" rate that's far higher than HDDs do. And, note well, I didn't say "failure rate," because that's not what I'm talking about. They also make data recovery from an HDD look like a cake walk.

SSDs are not a panacea.

 

[fincoder]

If you just read here (and there are plenty of elsewheres) it's pretty obvious that SSDs have a "fail without any warning" rate that's far higher than HDDs do.

Sorry but 'pretty obvious' isn't really an argument. The "fail without warning" rate might be higher, but is it really 'far higher'? The HDD overall failure rate might well be higher than SSDs, so for some that is a major factor too. And as an OS drive you have massive performance gains which is the biggest attraction of SSDs. The possibility of sudden failure exists for all storage media, that's what I tell my customers. 1TB OneDrive included with Office 365 is a great way of reducing the risk of data loss because once set, the user doesn't need to actually do anything.

I don't supply computers without an SSD for the OS. If not you're doing your customers a disservice.

 

[NviGate Systems]

Well, even though I will upgrade to SSD on request (or sometimes suggest it) it's not automatic.

If you just read here (and there are plenty of elsewheres) it's pretty obvious that SSDs have a "fail without any warning" rate that's far higher than HDDs do. And, note well, I didn't say "failure rate," because that's not what I'm talking about. They also make data recovery from an HDD look like a cake walk.

SSDs are not a panacea.

This is my worry about SSD. People buy them figuring because they don't have moving parts and are faster, there is a relationship with quality and longevity. But that couldn't be further from the truth.

The fragmented nature of SSD production, undocumented control chips etc., makes it a nightmare to recover data. Most customers that I dealt with with data recovery and SSD were actually shocked and had the impression that they were inherently better.

TLDR; in some cases magnetic media can have higher reliability and disaster recovery availability than chip based storage.

 

[britechguy]

One day your client's SSD or HDD is going to fail, and on that day they'll have a choice of restoring from backup, paying for professional data recovery, or losing their data. If you have the first case covered then you don't need to worry about the second two.

And anyone here, everyone here, that deals with residential and small business clients on a routine basis knows that "having the first case covered" is, sadly, all too rare.

That matters. That matters a lot when it comes to catastrophic failure of storage media and the ability to recover from it at a reasonable cost afterward. When SSDs are at the same price point for data recovery, then you have a point about them always being better. Until then, that's your opinion, and you are free to hold it. Given what I've seen when un-backed-up SSDs suffer sudden death, I am absolutely not sold on the always better assertion. Not even close.

Speed is not the ne plus ultra for a lot of people. There are lots of other considerations, and the age of the HDD is far from over.

 

[britechguy]

Yes, we all have clients who can't be bothered to back up their computers - but I'd be surprised if anyone has many clients who aren't aware that they should. As long as we've provided the correct advice and set up the correct systems then really that's all we can do. We're not responsible for our clients' behaviour, or their choices, and I think it's appropriate to let them behave like adults and experience the world accordingly. Some of those choices lead to unpleasant consequences but as one of my wisest clients once observed "I've lost all my data but no kittens were hurt", and nobody seems to go through a significant data loss more than once.

We routinely replace HDDs with SSDs, both as upgrades and as repairs, and we always make sure that there's a backup strategy in place - automatic cloud backup if possible, automatic backup to an external drive if not, manual backup to an external drive for really weird cases - but there's always a backup before they take the computer away. Anything less is unprofessional, anything more is mollycoddling.

No, you and some others routinely replace HDDs with SSDs. Not everyone does.

Clearly, you are not alone in your approach and attitudes. And, clearly, neither am I.

And if you think that, "we always make sure that there's a back up strategy in place," after having said what you said before, then you're logically inconsistent. I can't, and don't set up backup protocols unless the client explicitly asks me to do so after I've explained how important it is. Some refuse.

And if there's something simple I can do to make a disaster less of one, well, I'll happily do it. And that means leaving HDDs in place on systems I'm convinced will not be backed up.

 

[Porthos]

and the ability to recover from it at a reasonable cost afterward.

I have had only had 2 users on 20 years willing to pay for data recovery.

There are lots of other considerations

Like not being affected by drops and vibrations in laptops as well.

 

[NJW]

(sorry - unannounced motorcycle analogy)

<snort> Damn, another keyboard full of coffee ...

 

[fincoder]

And if there's something simple I can do to make a disaster less of one, well, I'll happily do it. And that means leaving HDDs in place on systems I'm convinced will not be backed up.

HDD sudden failures might be rare, but so are SSD failures. I reckon these unrecoverable failures occur at roughly the same rate for HDDs and SSDs. So my opinion is that HDDs are more troublesome because data needs to be recovered more often, and there is no more loss of data from SSD failures than HDD failures.

 

[MDD1963]

Crucial MX500 was recently on sale for $57 for a 500 GB version...

Little spinner drives < or = to 2 TB should be 'verboten', IMO....