Well Jani thanks for your reply. I think the root question we need to find an answer to here is "Did the drive actually sustain a permanent damage?", right?

Because, assuming the there was no permanent damage done the drive could get repaired automatically by a fresh write to the block being reported as bad.Then the Offline_Uncorrectable count would not increase and the Drive Fitness Test would not increase the reallocated count as well (since there was no reallocation needed to correct the problem). And all the observed results simply fall into place...

Well in my case all the reported problems prior to the correction were read faults from the location (but I don't have the complete history on my log). So I was thinking that there is still hope for me and my drive. ;-) Would you disagree?

On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Jani Patanen <jani.patanen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> I have a Hitachi HTS421212H9AT00 hard disk on my laptop. I recently ran the
> smartctl tool to test my hard disk from Ubuntu 8.04 after my windows failed
> to boot up.
> The raw values extracted from an extended offline test result stated...
> Current_Pending_Sector   : 1
> Offline_Uncorrectable    : 0
> Reallocated_Sector_Ct    : 0
> Reallocated_Event_Count  : 4
> The test log stated LBA 7333131 had failed the test.
>
> Q1) When the offline uncorrectable count is 0 what does it state regarding
> the kind of damage the disk has sustained? I mean is it a permanent damage
> or something that can be repaired through a write to the block?
>
> After learning that Hitachi provides a utility called the Drive Fitness
> Test(DFT) which could test and repair bad blocks I gave it shot.
> Now after running the tool (where it found bad blocks and made repairs) I
> ran smartctl extended offline test again and the result are...
> Current_Pending_Sector   : 0
> Offline_Uncorrectable    : 0
> Reallocated_Sector_Ct    : 0
> Reallocated_Event_Count  : 4
>
> Q2) Shouldn't the count of offline uncorrectable blocks be 1 (or more) and
> the reallocated sector count also be atleast 1?
>
> Q3) Note that the reallocated event's count in raw value has not increased
> after running the DFT tool. Can that be interpreted as no blocks had to be
> reallocated to repair the problem?
>
> Q4) Just to be reassured, does this result mean that my hard disk had
> sustained no permanent damage and whatever bad blocks it had were fully
> repaired by the tool?

A1: Don't know
A2: I think it should, but your experience seems to be same as mine
(see my messages couple of weeks earlier). Perhaps Hitachi drives
don't update the reallocated_sector_ct.
A3: I doubt it.
A4: I'd get a new hard drive or start backing up the current one more often.