w2k chkdsk "windows replaced bad clusters in file" question

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

  1. jhigbee

    jhigbee 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).
     
    jhigbee, Aug 11, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. jhigbee

    old jon Guest

    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. Advertisements

  3. jhigbee

    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.
     
    Eric Gisin, Aug 11, 2005
    #3
  4. jhigbee

    aleX Guest

    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. jhigbee

    Rod Speed Guest

    That is just plain wrong. Fragmented files
    have no effect on processing power at all.
     
    Rod Speed, Aug 11, 2005
    #5
  6. jhigbee

    aleX Guest

    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. jhigbee

    Rod Speed Guest

    The effort required to do that is completely trivial processing power wise.
    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. jhigbee

    127.0.0.1 Guest

    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. jhigbee

    Rod Speed Guest

    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. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.