w2k chkdsk "windows replaced bad clusters in file" question
in [Storage]
|
Prev: USB 2.0 port
Next: partition order in partition table
From: jhigbee on 10 Aug 2005 23:48 When Windows 2000 checkdisk chkdsk reports "windows replaced bad clusters in file" does that mean that data was lost or not? I got the message on while doing a chkdsk /f /r on an 80GB supposedly refurbished Seagate ST380011A hard drive - on three large ISO type files. However when chkdsk completed it said there were no bad sectors found. So, does this mean that: Option 1: the redunancy of ntfs most likely allowed the drive's "SMART" functionality to a.) not have lost any data in the first place because of the redunancy of ntfs, and b.) that the starting to flake out sections of the ISO files was reallocated to a different sector; or, option 2: that because there's no good documentation what the chkdsk message "windows replaced bad clusters in file" really means who knows - maybe the three large ISO files which it reported that message for really do now have some corruption. On a side note I've been testing spinrite, but it's so very slow I've almost thought about setting up a spare computer in another room just for the sole purpose of running spinrite on it (and so that I won't have to listen to a computer while I attempt to sleep).
From: old jon on 11 Aug 2005 09:01 <jhigbee(a)nyx.net> wrote in message news:1123732089.939126.302450(a)g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > When Windows 2000 checkdisk chkdsk reports "windows replaced bad > clusters in file" does that mean that data was lost or not? > > I got the message on while doing a chkdsk /f /r on an 80GB supposedly > refurbished Seagate ST380011A hard drive - on three large ISO type > files. > > However when chkdsk completed it said there were no bad sectors found. > > So, does this mean that: > > Option 1: the redunancy of ntfs most likely allowed the drive's "SMART" > functionality to a.) not have lost any data in the first place because > of the redunancy of ntfs, and b.) that the starting to flake out > sections of the ISO files was reallocated to a different sector; > > or, option 2: that because there's no good documentation what the > chkdsk message "windows replaced bad clusters in file" really means who > knows - maybe the three large ISO files which it reported that message > for really do now have some corruption. > > On a side note I've been testing spinrite, but it's so very slow I've > almost thought about setting up a spare computer in another room just > for the sole purpose of running spinrite on it (and so that I won't > have to listen to a computer while I attempt to sleep). > Supposedly Refurbished ?. What the hell does that mean ?. Has someone cleaned it, and reformatted it ?. Download the hard drive test tools from Seagate, and test the drive. you don`t want to lose your (valuable ?.) data do you ?. best wishes..OJ
From: Eric Gisin on 11 Aug 2005 13:31 Google groups on "windows replaced bad clusters in file" comes up with clues. Sometimes chkdsk reports bad sectors, sometimes not. Check for errors in event viewer and drive diagnostics. Some people are getting this error only on pagefile.sys and compressed folders like system32\dllcache. That suggests there is a bug in chkdsk, perhaps it is reading out-of-bounds sectors. <jhigbee(a)nyx.net> wrote in message news:1123732089.939126.302450(a)g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > When Windows 2000 checkdisk chkdsk reports "windows replaced bad > clusters in file" does that mean that data was lost or not? > > I got the message on while doing a chkdsk /f /r on an 80GB supposedly > refurbished Seagate ST380011A hard drive - on three large ISO type > files. > > However when chkdsk completed it said there were no bad sectors found. > > So, does this mean that: > > Option 1: the redunancy of ntfs most likely allowed the drive's "SMART" > functionality to a.) not have lost any data in the first place because > of the redunancy of ntfs, and b.) that the starting to flake out > sections of the ISO files was reallocated to a different sector; > > or, option 2: that because there's no good documentation what the > chkdsk message "windows replaced bad clusters in file" really means who > knows - maybe the three large ISO files which it reported that message > for really do now have some corruption. > > On a side note I've been testing spinrite, but it's so very slow I've > almost thought about setting up a spare computer in another room just > for the sole purpose of running spinrite on it (and so that I won't > have to listen to a computer while I attempt to sleep). >
From: aleX on 11 Aug 2005 15:05 jhigbee(a)nyx.net wrote: > When Windows 2000 checkdisk chkdsk reports "windows replaced bad > clusters in file" does that mean that data was lost or not? > > I got the message on while doing a chkdsk /f /r on an 80GB supposedly > refurbished Seagate ST380011A hard drive - on three large ISO type > files. > > However when chkdsk completed it said there were no bad sectors found. > > So, does this mean that: > > Option 1: the redunancy of ntfs most likely allowed the drive's "SMART" > functionality to a.) not have lost any data in the first place because > of the redunancy of ntfs, and b.) that the starting to flake out > sections of the ISO files was reallocated to a different sector; > > or, option 2: that because there's no good documentation what the > chkdsk message "windows replaced bad clusters in file" really means who > knows - maybe the three large ISO files which it reported that message > for really do now have some corruption. > > On a side note I've been testing spinrite, but it's so very slow I've > almost thought about setting up a spare computer in another room just > for the sole purpose of running spinrite on it (and so that I won't > have to listen to a computer while I attempt to sleep). > Slightly OT, but I had a similar problem with ISO files and chkdsk. I didn't realise at the time that when you create an ISO, the file it creates can be very fragmented. I was copying and moving these 4Gb 'files' around on the hard drive, then suddenly the hard drive stopped responding. Not surprising really, given the processing power required to shift huge fragmented files around. Stupidly I rebooted, and chkdsk started up. My index was damaged, and I made the mistake of letting chkdsk 'fix' the problem. After about 24 hours, I was left with an unintelligible mess. Small files had been joined together into one big file, mp3's not joined together were all stripped of their leading 32k (info tags), the 32k segments all left on the drive, some files just plain gone, and all files were renamed to long meaningless strings. I had to look at every one in turn to see what it was and whether I could fix it. If you can copy or recover any vital files to another drive before using chkdsk I would recommend doing so.
From: Rod Speed on 11 Aug 2005 17:22
aleX <aleX(a)no-email-address.com> wrote: > jhigbee(a)nyx.net wrote: >> When Windows 2000 checkdisk chkdsk reports "windows replaced bad >> clusters in file" does that mean that data was lost or not? >> >> I got the message on while doing a chkdsk /f /r on an 80GB supposedly >> refurbished Seagate ST380011A hard drive - on three large ISO type >> files. >> >> However when chkdsk completed it said there were no bad sectors >> found. So, does this mean that: >> >> Option 1: the redunancy of ntfs most likely allowed the drive's >> "SMART" functionality to a.) not have lost any data in the first >> place because of the redunancy of ntfs, and b.) that the starting to >> flake out sections of the ISO files was reallocated to a different >> sector; or, option 2: that because there's no good documentation what the >> chkdsk message "windows replaced bad clusters in file" really means >> who knows - maybe the three large ISO files which it reported that >> message for really do now have some corruption. >> >> On a side note I've been testing spinrite, but it's so very slow I've >> almost thought about setting up a spare computer in another room just >> for the sole purpose of running spinrite on it (and so that I won't >> have to listen to a computer while I attempt to sleep). >> > > Slightly OT, but I had a similar problem with ISO files and chkdsk. I > didn't realise at the time that when you create an ISO, the file it > creates can be very fragmented. I was copying and moving these 4Gb > 'files' around on the hard drive, then suddenly the hard drive stopped > responding. Not surprising really, given the processing power required > to shift huge fragmented files around. That is just plain wrong. Fragmented files have no effect on processing power at all. > Stupidly I rebooted, and chkdsk started up. My index was damaged, and I made > the mistake of letting chkdsk 'fix' the problem. After about 24 hours, I was > left with an unintelligible mess. Small files had been joined together into > one big file, mp3's not joined together were all stripped of their leading 32k > (info tags), the 32k segments all left on the drive, some files just plain > gone, and all files were renamed to long meaningless strings. I had to look at > every one in turn to see what it was and whether I could fix it. > If you can copy or recover any vital files to another drive before using > chkdsk I would recommend doing so. |