w2k chkdsk "windows replaced bad clusters in file" question

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by jhigbee@nyx.net, Aug 11, 2005.

  1. Guest

    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).
     
    , Aug 11, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. old jon Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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
     
    old jon, Aug 11, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Eric Gisin Guest

    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 news:...
    > 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).
    >
     
    Eric Gisin, Aug 11, 2005
    #3
  4. aleX Guest

    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.
     
    aleX, Aug 11, 2005
    #4
  5. Rod Speed Guest

    aleX <> wrote:
    > 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.
     
    Rod Speed, Aug 11, 2005
    #5
  6. aleX Guest

    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.
     
    aleX, Aug 11, 2005
    #6
  7. Rod Speed Guest

    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.
     
    Rod Speed, Aug 12, 2005
    #7
  8. 127.0.0.1 Guest

    "Rod Speed" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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
     
    127.0.0.1, Aug 12, 2005
    #8
  9. Rod Speed Guest

    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.
     
    Rod Speed, Aug 12, 2005
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?Qm9i?=

    W2K Prof. to W2K Prof. File & Printer Sharing Not Working

    =?Utf-8?B?Qm9i?=, Dec 12, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    2,322
    Malke
    Dec 17, 2004
  2. Rocky

    Where is log file for chkdsk for Windows XP?

    Rocky, Jul 9, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    84,465
    hacklestone
    May 13, 2009
  3. jaze
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    629
  4. Remi

    chkdsk/f question

    Remi, Feb 23, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    2,914
    Mike245
    Feb 24, 2004
  5. J & C Houghton

    chkdsk question

    J & C Houghton, Jun 19, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,592
    J & C Houghton
    Jun 19, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page