(Msg. 1) Posted: Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:15 pm
Post subject: Bad Clusters vs. Bad Sectors Archived from groups: microsoft>public>storage, others (more info?)
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.
--
"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 @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
| |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net
\ _ / Nuke ANT from e-mail address: philpi.RemoveThis@earthlink.netANT
( ) or ANTant.RemoveThis@zimage.com
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on his home computer.
(Msg. 2) Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:22 pm
Post subject: Re: Bad Clusters vs. Bad Sectors [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
In news:eCUe3AURKHA.4580@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl,
Ant typed on Sun, 04 Oct 2009 15:15:43 -0700:
> 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.
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
(Msg. 3) Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 9:24 am
Post subject: Re: Bad Clusters vs. Bad Sectors [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
On Oct 7, 4:22 pm, "BillW50" <Bill... DeleteThis @aol.kom> wrote:
> Innews:eCUe3AURKHA.4580@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl,
> Ant typed on Sun, 04 Oct 2009 15:15:43 -0700:
>
> > 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. >
> 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
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
(Msg. 4) Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 12:15 pm
Post subject: Re: Bad Clusters vs. Bad Sectors [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
In
news:ad229aaf-2b35-4db4-ad4f-f94849a1ad2d@b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com,
loke typed on Thu, 8 Oct 2009 09:24:26 -0700 (PDT):
> On Oct 7, 4:22 pm, "BillW50" <Bill... RemoveThis @aol.kom> wrote:
>> Innews:eCUe3AURKHA.4580@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl,
>> Ant typed on Sun, 04 Oct 2009 15:15:43 -0700:
>>
>>> 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. >>
>> 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
>
> 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
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.
(Msg. 5) Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 11:59 am
Post subject: Re: Bad Clusters vs. Bad Sectors [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
On 10/8/2009 10:15 AM PT, BillW50 typed:
>>>> 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?
>>> 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.
>> 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
>
> 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.
=== START OF INFORMATION SECTION ===
Model Family: Maxtor DiamondMax Plus 8 family
Device Model: Maxtor 6E040L0
Serial Number: E155KPHE
Firmware Version: NAR61590
User Capacity: 41,110,142,976 bytes
Device is: In smartctl database [for details use: -P show]
ATA Version is: 7
ATA Standard is: ATA/ATAPI-7 T13 1532D revision 0
Local Time is: Sun Oct 04 16:43:43 2009 PDT
SMART support is: Available - device has SMART capability.
Enabled status cached by OS, trying SMART RETURN
STATUS cmd.
SMART support is: Enabled
=== START OF READ SMART DATA SECTION ===
SMART overall-health self-assessment test result: PASSED
General SMART Values:
Offline data collection status: (0x82) Offline data collection activity
was completed without error.
Auto Offline Data Collection:
Enabled.
Self-test execution status: ( 116) The previous self-test completed
having
the read element of the test
failed.
Total time to complete Offline
data collection: (1021) seconds.
Offline data collection
capabilities: (0x5b) SMART execute Offline immediate.
Auto Offline data collection
on/off support.
Suspend Offline collection upon new
command.
Offline surface scan supported.
Self-test supported.
No Conveyance Self-test supported.
Selective Self-test supported.
SMART capabilities: (0x0003) Saves SMART data before entering
power-saving mode.
Supports SMART auto save timer.
Error logging capability: (0x01) Error logging supported.
No General Purpose Logging support.
Short self-test routine
recommended polling time: ( 2) minutes.
Extended self-test routine
recommended polling time: ( 17) minutes.
SMART Error Log Version: 1
Warning: ATA error count 19 inconsistent with error log pointer 5
ATA Error Count: 19 (device log contains only the most recent five errors)
CR = Command Register [HEX]
FR = Features Register [HEX]
SC = Sector Count Register [HEX]
SN = Sector Number Register [HEX]
CL = Cylinder Low Register [HEX]
CH = Cylinder High Register [HEX]
DH = Device/Head Register [HEX]
DC = Device Command Register [HEX]
ER = Error register [HEX]
ST = Status register [HEX]
Powered_Up_Time is measured from power on, and printed as
DDd+hh:mm:SS.sss where DD=days, hh=hours, mm=minutes,
SS=sec, and sss=millisec. It "wraps" after 49.710 days.
Error 19 occurred at disk power-on lifetime: 3881 hours (161 days + 17
hours)
When the command that caused the error occurred, the device was in an
unknown state.
After command completion occurred, registers were:
ER ST SC SN CL CH DH
-- -- -- -- -- -- --
40 51 01 83 a2 68 e2 Error: UNC 1 sectors at LBA = 0x0268a283 =
40411779
Error 18 occurred at disk power-on lifetime: 3881 hours (161 days + 17
hours)
When the command that caused the error occurred, the device was in an
unknown state.
After command completion occurred, registers were:
ER ST SC SN CL CH DH
-- -- -- -- -- -- --
40 51 06 67 a2 68 e2 Error: UNC 6 sectors at LBA = 0x0268a267 =
40411751
Commands leading to the command that caused the error were:
CR FR SC SN CL CH DH DC Powered_Up_Time Command/Feature_Name
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---------------- --------------------
c8 00 22 67 a2 68 e2 00 02:14:09.264 READ DMA
c8 00 1e 13 ee 30 e1 00 02:14:09.248 READ DMA
c8 00 1f f1 15 30 e1 00 02:14:09.248 READ DMA
c8 00 1e 2f a8 27 e1 00 02:14:09.232 READ DMA
c8 00 1f da e7 23 e1 00 02:14:09.232 READ DMA
Error 17 occurred at disk power-on lifetime: 3871 hours (161 days + 7 hours)
When the command that caused the error occurred, the device was in an
unknown state.
After command completion occurred, registers were:
ER ST SC SN CL CH DH
-- -- -- -- -- -- --
40 51 06 67 a2 68 e2 Error: UNC 6 sectors at LBA = 0x0268a267 =
40411751
Commands leading to the command that caused the error were:
CR FR SC SN CL CH DH DC Powered_Up_Time Command/Feature_Name
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---------------- --------------------
c8 00 22 67 a2 68 e2 00 04:55:32.656 READ DMA
c8 00 80 81 02 ab e1 00 04:55:32.656 READ DMA
c8 00 08 09 02 ab e1 00 04:55:32.640 READ DMA
c8 00 1e 13 ee 30 e1 00 04:55:32.640 READ DMA
c8 00 08 c5 a3 11 e1 00 04:55:32.624 READ DMA
Error 16 occurred at disk power-on lifetime: 1858 hours (77 days + 10 hours)
When the command that caused the error occurred, the device was in an
unknown state.
After command completion occurred, registers were:
ER ST SC SN CL CH DH
-- -- -- -- -- -- --
40 51 62 db a5 68 e2 Error: UNC 98 sectors at LBA = 0x0268a5db =
40412635
Error 15 occurred at disk power-on lifetime: 1455 hours (60 days + 15 hours)
When the command that caused the error occurred, the device was in an
unknown state.
After command completion occurred, registers were:
ER ST SC SN CL CH DH
-- -- -- -- -- -- --
40 51 05 a8 fb 13 e0 Error: UNC 5 sectors at LBA = 0x0013fba8 = 1309608
Commands leading to the command that caused the error were:
CR FR SC SN CL CH DH DC Powered_Up_Time Command/Feature_Name
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---------------- --------------------
c8 00 08 a8 fb 13 e0 00 01:04:55.104 READ DMA
ca 00 08 3c f4 64 e2 00 01:04:55.104 WRITE DMA
c8 00 80 d0 fb 13 e0 00 01:04:55.104 READ DMA
c8 00 08 a8 fb 13 e0 00 01:04:53.968 READ DMA
ca 00 80 03 de 72 e2 00 01:04:53.968 WRITE DMA
SMART Self-test log structure revision number 1
Num Test_Description Status Remaining
LifeTime(hours) LBA_of_first_error
# 1 Extended offline Completed: read failure 40% 3882
49793
# 2 Extended offline Interrupted (host reset) 70% 3881
-
# 3 Short offline Completed without error 00% 0
-
SMART Selective self-test log data structure revision number 1
SPAN MIN_LBA MAX_LBA CURRENT_TEST_STATUS
1 0 0 Not_testing
2 0 0 Not_testing
3 0 0 Not_testing
4 0 0 Not_testing
5 0 0 Not_testing
Selective self-test flags (0x0):
After scanning selected spans, do NOT read-scan remainder of disk.
If Selective self-test is pending on power-up, resume after 0 minute delay.
--
"Left right left right we're army ants. We swarm we fight. We have no
home. We roam. We race. You're lucky if we miss your place." --Douglas
Florian (The Army Ants Poem)
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Phil/Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
| |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net
\ _ / Nuke ANT from e-mail address: philpi RemoveThis @earthlink.netANT
( ) or ANTant RemoveThis @zimage.com
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on his home computer.
All times are: Eastern Time (US & Canada) (change)
Page 1 of 1
You can post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You can edit your posts in this forum You can delete your posts in this forum You can vote in polls in this forum
Home
Forums
Home
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
Windows Other