1. Welcome Guest! In order to create a new topic or reply to an existing one, you must register first. It is easy and free. Click here to sign up now!.
    Dismiss Notice

Bad Clusters vs. Bad Sectors

Discussion in 'Microsoft Windows' started by Ant, Oct 4, 2009.

  1. Ant

    Ant Guest

    Hello!

    Am I understanding correctly that these terms are basically the same? If
    so, then why did my client's updated Windows 2000 SP4's chkdsk (/r /f
    parameters and rebooted to run it) on a HDD (NTFS) in an old Dell
    Optiplex system say there was a bad cluster and was able to move a file
    to a better place, but I rerun chkdsk in Windows 2000 and ran a chkdsk
    (no parameters) and it found 0 KB of bad sector?

    Thank you in advance. [​IMG]
    --
    "This is the ant. Treat it with respect. For it may very well be the
    next dominant lifeform of our planet." --Empire of the Ants movie
    /\___/\
    / /\ /\ \ Phil/Ant @ (Personal Web Site)
    | |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL):

    \ _ / Nuke ANT from e-mail address:
    philpi@earthlink.netANT
    ( ) or ANTant@zimage.com
    Ant is currently not listening to any songs on his home computer.
     
  2. BillW50

    BillW50 Guest

    In news:eCUe3AURKHA.4580@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl,
    Ant typed on Sun, 04 Oct 2009 15:15:43 -0700:<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
    > Hello!
    >
    > Am I understanding correctly that these terms are basically the same?
    > If so, then why did my client's updated Windows 2000 SP4's chkdsk (/r
    > /f parameters and rebooted to run it) on a HDD (NTFS) in an old Dell
    > Optiplex system say there was a bad cluster and was able to move a
    > file to a better place, but I rerun chkdsk in Windows 2000 and ran a
    > chkdsk (no parameters) and it found 0 KB of bad sector?
    >
    > Thank you in advance. [​IMG]<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

    Once a bad sector/cluster is found and marked as bad, it is no longer
    part of the useable part of the drive. And IDE drives internally hides
    them from outside sources, like Windows for example. Older MFM drives
    didn't have this ability. And brand new hard drives always have had bad
    sectors.

    And manufactures got tired of people returning hard drives because they
    have some bad sectors on them. So under IDE, they now had the ability to
    hide them from the outside. Although they can only hide so many. Once
    this limit is hit, they will start to show up. Which is rare, unless
    something is wrong with the drive.

    --
    Bill
    Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
    Windows XP SP2
     
  3. loke

    loke Guest

    On Oct 7, 4:22 pm, "BillW50" <Bill...@aol.kom> wrote:<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
    > Innews:eCUe3AURKHA.4580@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl,
    > Ant typed on Sun, 04 Oct 2009 15:15:43 -0700:
    ><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
    > > Hello!<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
    ><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
    > > Am I understanding correctly that these terms are basically the same?
    > > If so, then why did my client's updated Windows 2000 SP4's chkdsk (/r
    > > /f parameters and rebooted to run it) on a HDD (NTFS) in an old Dell
    > > Optiplex system say there was a bad cluster and was able to move a
    > > file to a better place, but I rerun chkdsk in Windows 2000 and ran a
    > > chkdsk (no parameters) and it found 0 KB of bad sector?<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
    ><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
    > > Thank you in advance. [​IMG]<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
    >
    > Once a bad sector/cluster is found and marked as bad, it is no longer
    > part of the useable part of the drive. And IDE drives internally hides
    > them from outside sources, like Windows for example. Older MFM drives
    > didn't have this ability. And brand new hard drives always have had bad
    > sectors.
    >
    > And manufactures got tired of people returning hard drives because they
    > have some bad sectors on them. So under IDE, they now had the ability to
    > hide them from the outside. Although they can only hide so many. Once
    > this limit is hit, they will start to show up. Which is rare, unless
    > something is wrong with the drive.
    >
    > --
    > Bill
    > Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
    > Windows XP SP2<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

    But if you use SMART, a drive status system built in the modern
    drives, you will know the bad sector problems, regardless, which
    should give you a good info about the health of the drive as well.
    Smartmontools on Linux does this very well.
    Loke
     
  4. BillW50

    BillW50 Guest

    In
    news:ad229aaf-2b35-4db4-ad4f-f94849a1ad2d@b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com,
    loke typed on Thu, 8 Oct 2009 09:24:26 -0700 (PDT):<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
    > On Oct 7, 4:22 pm, "BillW50" <Bill...@aol.kom> wrote:<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
    >> Innews:eCUe3AURKHA.4580@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl,
    >> Ant typed on Sun, 04 Oct 2009 15:15:43 -0700:
    >><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
    >>> Hello!<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
    >><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
    >>> Am I understanding correctly that these terms are basically the
    >>> same? If so, then why did my client's updated Windows 2000 SP4's
    >>> chkdsk (/r /f parameters and rebooted to run it) on a HDD (NTFS) in
    >>> an old Dell Optiplex system say there was a bad cluster and was
    >>> able to move a file to a better place, but I rerun chkdsk in
    >>> Windows 2000 and ran a chkdsk (no parameters) and it found 0 KB of
    >>> bad sector?<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
    >><!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
    >>> Thank you in advance. [​IMG]<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
    >>
    >> Once a bad sector/cluster is found and marked as bad, it is no longer
    >> part of the useable part of the drive. And IDE drives internally
    >> hides them from outside sources, like Windows for example. Older MFM
    >> drives didn't have this ability. And brand new hard drives always
    >> have had bad sectors.
    >>
    >> And manufactures got tired of people returning hard drives because
    >> they have some bad sectors on them. So under IDE, they now had the
    >> ability to hide them from the outside. Although they can only hide
    >> so many. Once this limit is hit, they will start to show up. Which
    >> is rare, unless something is wrong with the drive.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Bill
    >> Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
    >> Windows XP SP2<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
    >
    > But if you use SMART, a drive status system built in the modern
    > drives, you will know the bad sector problems, regardless, which
    > should give you a good info about the health of the drive as well.
    > Smartmontools on Linux does this very well.
    > Loke<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

    I use Hard Drive Sentinel which lists all of the SMART info. Nothing
    about bad sectors though. Yet all hard drives have them when they are
    manufactured. And the SMART info for all of my drives (about 15 of them)
    all shows 100%. I also believe it was Google (who has tons of hard
    drives) only found that SMART is only reliable for detecting pending
    faults only about 60% of the time.

    --
    Bill
    Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) - Windows XP SP2
     

Share This Page