If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
w2k chkdsk "windows replaced bad clusters in file" question
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). |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message oups.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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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. wrote in message oups.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). |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Rod Speed wrote:
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. Thanks for letting me know, I won't erroneously describe it again. I assumed that the system would need to keep track of where each 'fragment' was, rather than just a start and end point for a contiguous file, hence take far longer. This probably isn't the case though, I'm no expert, or anything approaching. What I do know is that chkdsk destroyed a lot of the files on my drive, admittedly after I stupidly restarted the machine when it may still have been processing. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
aleX wrote
Rod Speed wrote 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. Thanks for letting me know, I won't erroneously describe it again. I assumed that the system would need to keep track of where each 'fragment' was, rather than just a start and end point for a contiguous file, Yes. hence take far longer. The effort required to do that is completely trivial processing power wise. This probably isn't the case though, I'm no expert, or anything approaching. What I do know is that chkdsk destroyed a lot of the files on my drive, admittedly after I stupidly restarted the machine when it may still have been processing. Yeah, tho it would have stalled for some other reason. It certainly wouldnt have been due to fragmentation. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Rod Speed" wrote in message ... aleX wrote: wrote: 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. I would agree, but, under task manager, CPU usage shows Defrag hitting the upper limits. -a|ex |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
127.0.0.1 get.rooted@localhost wrote
Rod Speed wrote aleX wrote wrote 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. I would agree, but, under task manager, CPU usage shows Defrag hitting the upper limits. Irrelevant. Thats just the extensive moving of files around to get rid of the fragmentation. You'd get the same result moving unfragmented files around as much too. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CHKDSK killed my OpenGL subsystem | Skybuck Flying | Nvidia Videocards | 17 | April 28th 10 10:30 AM |
Mustek 1200 III EP undetectable in any image program | Raymond A. Chamberlin | Scanners | 18 | January 10th 05 08:52 AM |
Nero help needed | foghat | Cdr | 0 | May 31st 04 08:23 PM |
Radeon 7500 Saphire Windows ME Problem | Pamela and Howard Signa | Gateway Computers | 5 | February 17th 04 10:07 PM |
Can't get CD Burner to Burn | Nottoman | General | 2 | December 22nd 03 05:47 PM |