Windows 7 Forums
Welcome to Windows 7 Forums. Our forum is dedicated to helping you find support and solutions for any problems regarding your Windows 7 PC be it Dell, HP, Acer, Asus or a custom build. We also provide an extensive Windows 7 tutorial section that covers a wide range of tips and tricks.


Windows 7: Chkdsk - X Number Kilobytes in Bad Sectors

27 Aug 2017   #11
Megahertz07

Windows 7 HP 64
 
 

What parameters did you use on chkdsk c: ?
I would run it again with /r (chkdsk c: /r)
It will take hours, even a day. Once it begins DON'T interrupt or you may loose data. If tit finds more bad clusters or bad sectors, replace the disk ASAP.

You can try to copy all files from the HDD to the new one.
On disk management, format the new disk and set it as Active.
Boot from a Linux disk, select all files and copy to the new one.
Boot from win 7 installation disk and then do a boot repair.


My System SpecsSystem Spec
.
28 Aug 2017   #12
dw85745

Win 7 Pro x32
 
 

Megahertz97.
Used chkdsk c: /f. (FWIW per chkdsk docs /r defaults to /f).
NOT real familiar with Linux but played with it some.
What Linux distribution do you suggest and what program to copy?

======================
FWIW spent lot time this weekend learning about HD and NTFS.
Turns out if the OS (NTFS) can't read the file in approximately 600ms, then
the sector is marked bad. Also when running chkdsk, it only is checking two bytes
within the MFT table (my guess is - still checking - that those two bytes represent
the threshold and/or average read time while the other is the last actual read time).
My System SpecsSystem Spec
28 Aug 2017   #13
Megahertz07

Windows 7 HP 64
 
 

Check disk /f fix logical disk issues.
/R Locates bad sectors and recovers readable information (implies /F)
Run Check Disk from a Command Line to Check for and fix Disk Errors

I use Lubuntu - lubuntu | lightweight, fast, easier that is a light version of Ubuntu.
Download the iso, burn a CD or use Rufus - Create bootable USB drives the easy way to create a boot able USB flash disk.

Samuria told NOT to clone the old disk to the new one as bad clusters will also be copied. I don't think so. It will copy bad clusters IF you do a cluster by cluster clone. If you use default clone, it will read and then white. It's faster and also defrags the files.
Macrium Software | Your Image is Everything
My System SpecsSystem Spec
.

28 Aug 2017   #14
dw85745

Win 7 Pro x32
 
 

Megahertz07: Thanks for info.

Had the fortune to be in contact with one of the top HD recovery specialist in the US.
His recommendation is that one should NEVER run chkdsk as running it manually screws things up.
This seems to be supported by a "Chkdsk" article by Chen, that NTFS is self healing on Windows 7 (believe implemented beginning with VISTA).

To confirm type:

cmd > fsutil repair query c: {if c is your boot drive}
Mine shows on.

Also found out chkdsk has a /b option which will unflag bad sectors to have them reevaluated
but EXTREME care must be taken with this option as can ruin a drive. Backup drive first!!!
My System SpecsSystem Spec
28 Aug 2017   #15
samuria

win 8 32 bit
 
 

When you clone a disk with bad sectors it depeneds on the software and the setting if you search for each imaging software how it handles bad sector there is a wide scope some abourt some copy this that dont you have to set them up specifically not to copy its all ways safer NOT to clone as you dont know if there are more bad blocks and what files are corrupt v5: Imaging disks with bad sectors (Bad Sectors)
My System SpecsSystem Spec
28 Aug 2017   #16
dw85745

Win 7 Pro x32
 
 

samuria: Point well taken. I happen to use Clonezilla, which copied the bad blocks based on comparing the original to the clone. However Clonezilla has a option -- used since all this issue -- that repairs source prior to copy. What that really means not real sure as have not found a lot of docs on Clonezilla that go into detail about how it clones.

=========================================
Based on my research, I'll give My2Cents with the following summary on Chkdsk from an end users perspective:

1) On the one hand we have the drive manufacturers who are competing to sell drives. Naturally they want to look better than their competitor, hence they may fudge the numbers a bit to try both to sell the drive and reduce their RMA's.
Since most drives -- I'm aware of - have about a 50,000 MBTF, most users won't even come close to this usage and will either purchase a new system or drive before any issues develop -- OR - technology will change (e.g IDE to SATA) which most likely will have the same effect. So for me, I will give little weight to SMART, but rely on the manufacturers Test software as properly reflecting the integrity of the physical disk and its ability to hold/track the data put on it.

On the other hand we have for the most part Microsoft, who sells an OS, but is really selling services to troubleshoot OS problems as well as information about the OS they sell. While they give the end user some information -- they've been a lot better at this recently -- the end user may not have enough of a personal knowledge base to accurately use this information. For example, I'm sure there are a number of APIs to manipulate the NTFS file system at a very low level. But how many of us have used them and understand what impact -- consequences - they may have. Microsoft is also interested in keeping the customer happy. Hence they don't want users complaining about their OS or of lost data. So by marking sectors as bad earlier then they maybe should be (hopefully they transferred this data to another sector), they solve both problems. However, they still provide tools but don't really go into depth on their impact. So I'm NOT going to run chkdsk in the future. Also as Chen pointed out in his book, Microsoft gets blamed for a lot of problems, because people identify with the OS, when in fact the problem may have been caused by the software one just loaded from whereever.

My problems didn't start -- or at least become known (ignorance is bliss here) until I ran chkdsk. Prior to running chkdsk I had no "found000" directory and everything seemed to work fine.

Two additional points.
1) I saw today that Western Digital is bidding for Toshiba. If this occurs we will be down to two drive manufacturers and who knows what may occur other than the cost of HD most likely will rise.
2) We have a lot of third party and free software developers. But does one really know whether or Not their software is messing up your NTFS?
My System SpecsSystem Spec
28 Aug 2017   #17
Megahertz07

Windows 7 HP 64
 
 

In 30 years working with PC I had seen many hardware fails, and most of them were HDD failures. HDD are basically mechanical devices with rotating disks and a sensor arm floating very, very close from disk surface.
There are two kinds of disk problems: Hardware and logical.
Check disk doesn't repair hardware problems. But it identifies them and try to manipulate data to avoid the defective part of the disk.
There is no way that check disk can cause a hardware problem as it only manipulate data.
On the DOS era, I use to run it at startup (autoexec.bat) and it never damaged the disk.
When you ran check disk and it detected bad clusters the disk was already damaged. It only showed up to you.
As I wrote before, I would run check disk with the /r parameter. If it finds more bad sectors, replace the disk.
It's up to you. But is better be safe than sorry, so back up your data.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
28 Aug 2017   #18
dw85745

Win 7 Pro x32
 
 

Megahertz07:
Not trying to one up you, but been dealing with PC since 1981, and writing code since 1968.
This was before ASCII was even a standard.
That said, things change very rapidly, and keeping up is a major task.
Even with all I feel I know, I'd say it is about 10-20% of what's out there now.
I appreciate all the input and feedback from everyone who posts, and from that
try and make the best decision based on my knowledge, input received, and any additional research
throughout the discussion.
The above is the best I can provide at this point time.
Like everything else Cavet Emptor.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
Reply

 Chkdsk - X Number Kilobytes in Bad Sectors




Thread Tools




Similar help and support threads
Thread Forum
Can chkdsk /r mark bad sectors good if they are no longer bad?
My hard drive was having some problems, and chkdsk /r reported 60 bad sectors, so I copied it to a new hard drive using Clonezilla. The copy went fine, but chkdsk (the quick read-only test) reports the same 60 bad sectors on the new drive. Presumably it's only reporting these sectors as bad because...
Performance & Maintenance
chkdsk, does it check empty sectors ?
Does ChkDsk check empty sectors? I have run ChkDsk to "check only" a brand new (unused) 2TB HDD. The scan was all over within <5 seconds. Does ChkDsk only check occupied sectors ... files/folders ... or does it check all sectors ? C:\Windows\System32>chkdsk D: The type of the file system is...
Hardware & Devices
Chkdsk /f /r stuck, want to clone w/defective sectors
Hi guys. My 250GB LaCie External hard drive is failing. I tried to copy the data off of it before attempting anything but to no avail (Move operation would not start). So, I started a ChkDsk /f /r but it got stock at 10% on Stage/Step 4. I know it's failing. Windows still show it in "Computer" and...
Backup and Restore
CHKDSK zeroes out bad sectors
While using my laptop to load some old training DVDs for archiving, I discovered evidence of a bad sector on my laptop's hard drive (Seagate Momentus 7200.4 SATA 500GB): upon investigating file compare errors, I found one fairly large file (464MB) where, after several tries, everything matched...
Performance & Maintenance
Chkdsk /v 8kb in bad sectors
I made a chkdsk and found errors which were repaired by not allowing the bad fragments to be written on. When I use chkdsk /v it continually shows 8kb in bad sectors. Does anyone know if these are the bad sectors that were sent into limbo or the total bad kb on the hard drive? I am trying to...
Performance & Maintenance


Our Sites

Site Links

About Us

Find Us

Windows 7 Forums is an independent web site and has not been authorized, sponsored, or otherwise approved by Microsoft Corporation. "Windows 7" and related materials are trademarks of Microsoft Corp.

Designer Media Ltd

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:55.
Twitter Facebook Google+