Any relevance to full format after SMART extended test?

Hi,

A QUICK format does NOT scan for bad sectors, whereas a FULL format does. So, you can think of it this way:

QUICK Format + CHKDSK /F = FULL Format

If you are confident that your SMART assesment tells you you have no bad sectors, then a QUICK format is probably sufficient. If it was me, and I was doing a completely new installation on a previously used HDD, then personal I would run a FULL Format, regardless of what my SMART assesment would look like. A FULL format takes considerably longer than a QUICK format, but you get the satisfaction of knowing the status of those clusters.

Regards,
Golden

Big ++ on Golden's suggestion. Full format. Another option would be a complete wipe of the hard drive using a 3rd party program.

Hey Golden, how trustworthy do you think SMART scan could be? Could the bad blocks be missed and therefore not remapped?

Since my post I've been reading and now I say yes, the full format after SMART complete scan is overkill because all bad sectors should be reallocated already. In fact I saw some forum posts about chkdsk failing to flag known bad spots - here and quoting someone else here (check his high rank profile): "I have proved many times that Microsoft CHKDSK command missed bad sectors and only using HDD vendor made utilities could find the real problem."

Perhaps if SMART implementation is faulty, then drive utility wouldn't be reliable but (now I know) even Ubuntu trusts Drive Self-Tests.

PS. Are you right about disk check in the full FORMAT for Vista and Seven? You missed this at least: it writes zeros now, which serves to find the bad blocks too when writing fails.

Hi,

The problem is that each disk vendor has their own SMART standards and definitions. In my view, the only way is a FULL format, or if you like, a QUICK Format and CHKDSK/f

Regards,
Golden