Anyway, it is recommended to rescue and back up important data first.
Because I have seen hard disks that have serious problems when they are hardly used, please back up the data first.
As for "hard disk health", my personal understanding is based on the evaluation of hard disk S.M.A.R.T. self-test data. I have never used hard disk sentry, but there is a "health" evaluation column in the lower left corner of the hard disk S.M.A.R.T. test page in speedfan software, which shows the percentage, which is probably the same as what you said.
With regard to S.M.A.R.T testing, the hard disk will report some parameters recorded during operation, so as to monitor the operation status of the hard disk. Although there is no absolute relationship between S.M.A.R.T. detection and hard disk failure (some hard disks will be bad even if S.M.A.R.T. detection is fine, or they can be used for a long time after detection).
There are many methods to detect the parameters of S.M.A.R.T For example, the software tools for major hard disk manufacturers to detect their own hard disks (as long as they are downloaded to users) can be detected, and they are universal, and many small softwares can also be seen, such as HD Tune and Speedfan. If any test fails, there will be obvious hints. The items supported by different hard disks are different. If you are interested, you can search the specific meaning of each item online.
As for the "health" of Seagate's hard disk, according to my observation in speedfan software S.M.A.R.T, the new hard disk is almost only a little more than half, while Hitachi /IBM's hard disk, even the 60GXP glass disk, has been used for many years, and its health is above 90%. Therefore, health does not have the ability to compare horizontally between different brands. Personal analysis of the reasons for this phenomenon may be generated by comparing the current values and thresholds of various parameters provided by the software hard disk. Different hard disk manufacturers have different views and values on threshold setting, which may be the reason why the health of different brands of hard disks is very different (personal opinion, for reference only). It should be said that health gives users an intuitive parameter to evaluate the condition of hard disk, which has positive significance, but the differences between different brands have not been well solved.
Personally, I think that as far as my hard disk is concerned, if my health has not obviously declined, or if my health is not abnormally low (it is best to interpret the S.M.A.R.T parameters), I can assume that there is nothing abnormal in this test.
Specific to the landlord, it is suggested that after backing up the data, first find a software to see if there are any projects that S.M.A.R.T can't pass. If there are, you need to be vigilant.
Next, use Seagate's SEA TOOLS diagnostic tool (downloaded from Seagate's website, you can download the image and carve it into a CD, and you can start it through the CD and conduct related tests. Users need to have basic English skills) to conduct a comprehensive inspection of the hard disk. It takes a long time, and the waiting time is about a few hours. If the hard disk is hard to read when it is damaged, it will be even slower.
If there is something wrong with the test, the software will prompt for automatic repair, but many times the repair is unreliable. It is recommended to go directly to the after-sales service channel and change the hard disk, which is more peaceful.
I hope the landlord's hard disk problem can be properly solved as soon as possible! :)