>> In the event of an ECC failure, the sector will not be reallocated - it
>> is
>> already failed.
>
> This is the crux of the difference between your and my point of view.
> You say the sector will not be reallocated.
> I say it will
Why would it?
If the block has already failed, and the drive controller has already
identified it as failed, why would it attempt to copy essentially random
data into valuable spare sectors? Aside from being simply nonsensical to
conduct such nugatory work, it leads to silent corruption. Neither of
these outcomes is preferrable to the simple case of simply failing the
reallocation call.
> and I believe Hugo also suggests it will.
You might like to let Hugo speak for himself; I saw him arguing that
reallocation is less effective than it might be. You appear to be the only
person arguing that drive controller firmware has a behaviour that
deliberately corrupts data.
> A simple google would confirm mine and Hugo's point of view.
> E.g.
> http://www.ariolic.com/activesmart/smart-attributes/reallocated-sectors-count.html
That link does not support your argument. I wonder why you posted it.
Vic.
