load_cycle_count (another thread) - worry or not to worry?

[marcusone]

From reading the other threads I'm still now sure if I should be worried or not about my LCC.

 

 

I tried the 'hdparm -B 255' command but that didn't work; I'm considering running the WD tool on the drives.

 

Should I run the WD tool or not worry?

[generalz]

im not sure about the LLC, but the two drives with reallocated sectors, those need to be replaced

[marcusone]

im not sure about the LLC, but the two drives with reallocated sectors, those need to be replaced

 

Replace due to 1 and 16 reallocated sectors?  I doubt they "need" to be replaced.  Pending is 0 and so long as I don't see lots of those or more reallocation take place it should be fine.  I think SMART's threshold for that is 100, so long way from an actual SMART error.

[Joe L.]

im not sure about the LLC, but the two drives with reallocated sectors, those need to be replaced

 

Replace due to 1 and 16 reallocated sectors?  I doubt they "need" to be replaced.  Pending is 0 and so long as I don't see lots of those or more reallocation take place it should be fine.  I think SMART's threshold for that is 100, so long way from an actual SMART error.

Most large drives have several thousand spare sectors and will not fail the SMART test until they are nearly all used in re-allocation.

 

As said, if the number of re-allocated sectors is not increasing over time, you should be fine.  I've had one disk with 130 re-allocated sectors for years.  You just need to check periodically.

 

Joe L.

[marcusone]

What I thought... its more about the frequency of change in those reallocation numbers rather than their existence.

 

What about the LCC?  Anyone?