How long will chkdsk /f /r take on a 1.7 TB drive

They may have an idea here. x-posted to: microsoft.public.storage

http://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/en-us/default.aspx?dg=...rosoft.



--

Regards,

Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect


"maxkumar" wrote:
> My apologies, but I forgot to mention that this T drive is configured as
> RAID
> 5 on the SAN storage. And there are no problems with the disk itself
> since
> the RAID manager does not show any bad sectors. The corruption problem is
> with the file system and file allocation table, hence I wanted to run
> chkdsk.
> I suppose since this is a RAIDed drive, I will not be able to run chkdsk
> with
> /r option since the physical disk(s) are not exposed to windows in this
> case?
>
> "maxkumar" wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> I have a Windows 2000 Advanced Server (with SP4) machine in our
>> production
>> environment which is connected to a SAN storage. One of the drives in the
>> SAN
>> (mounted as drive letter T on the server) is corrupted. The capacity of
>> that
>> drive is 1.7 terabytes and there are about 3 million files currently on
>> that
>> drive (used space about 1.2 TB). I would like to run a chkdsk on the
>> drive
>> with /f /r arguments. Can anyone help me provide a rough gauge on how
>> long
>> will chkdsk take to run on such a large drive? I know there will be a
>> significant downtime required, but I want to get a rough idea on how long
>> will that be so that I can tell my customers what to expect. Also, please
>> let
>> me know if there is any better alternative that chkdsk for such a
>> scenario?
>> Thanks a lot in advance.

Ok I would be interested in seeing an answer to this, the link just takes me
right back to the news group.

"Dave Patrick" wrote:

> They may have an idea here. x-posted to: microsoft.public.storage
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/en-us/default.aspx?dg=...rosoft.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
> Microsoft Certified Professional
> Microsoft MVP [Windows]
> http://www.microsoft.com/protect
>
>
> "maxkumar" wrote:
> > My apologies, but I forgot to mention that this T drive is configured as
> > RAID
> > 5 on the SAN storage. And there are no problems with the disk itself
> > since
> > the RAID manager does not show any bad sectors. The corruption problem is
> > with the file system and file allocation table, hence I wanted to run
> > chkdsk.
> > I suppose since this is a RAIDed drive, I will not be able to run chkdsk
> > with
> > /r option since the physical disk(s) are not exposed to windows in this
> > case?
> >
> > "maxkumar" wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >> I have a Windows 2000 Advanced Server (with SP4) machine in our
> >> production
> >> environment which is connected to a SAN storage. One of the drives in the
> >> SAN
> >> (mounted as drive letter T on the server) is corrupted. The capacity of
> >> that
> >> drive is 1.7 terabytes and there are about 3 million files currently on
> >> that
> >> drive (used space about 1.2 TB). I would like to run a chkdsk on the
> >> drive
> >> with /f /r arguments. Can anyone help me provide a rough gauge on how
> >> long
> >> will chkdsk take to run on such a large drive? I know there will be a
> >> significant downtime required, but I want to get a rough idea on how long
> >> will that be so that I can tell my customers what to expect. Also, please
> >> let
> >> me know if there is any better alternative that chkdsk for such a
> >> scenario?
> >> Thanks a lot in advance.
>
>

Depends on:
CPU cores and speed
Memory amount and speed
Type of connection to the storage array
CPU throughput of storage array
Type of disk setup on storage array
etc etc etc

Best bet is to run it for your system and then record it for later
reference.

JPagd wrote:
> Ok I would be interested in seeing an answer to this, the link just takes me
> right back to the news group.
>
> "Dave Patrick" wrote:
>
>> They may have an idea here. x-posted to: microsoft.public.storage
>>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/en-us/default.aspx?dg=...rosoft.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
>> Microsoft Certified Professional
>> Microsoft MVP [Windows]
>> http://www.microsoft.com/protect
>>
>>
>> "maxkumar" wrote:
>>> My apologies, but I forgot to mention that this T drive is configured as
>>> RAID
>>> 5 on the SAN storage. And there are no problems with the disk itself
>>> since
>>> the RAID manager does not show any bad sectors. The corruption problem is
>>> with the file system and file allocation table, hence I wanted to run
>>> chkdsk.
>>> I suppose since this is a RAIDed drive, I will not be able to run chkdsk
>>> with
>>> /r option since the physical disk(s) are not exposed to windows in this
>>> case?
>>>
>>> "maxkumar" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>> I have a Windows 2000 Advanced Server (with SP4) machine in our
>>>> production
>>>> environment which is connected to a SAN storage. One of the drives in the
>>>> SAN
>>>> (mounted as drive letter T on the server) is corrupted. The capacity of
>>>> that
>>>> drive is 1.7 terabytes and there are about 3 million files currently on
>>>> that
>>>> drive (used space about 1.2 TB). I would like to run a chkdsk on the
>>>> drive
>>>> with /f /r arguments. Can anyone help me provide a rough gauge on how
>>>> long
>>>> will chkdsk take to run on such a large drive? I know there will be a
>>>> significant downtime required, but I want to get a rough idea on how long
>>>> will that be so that I can tell my customers what to expect. Also, please
>>>> let
>>>> me know if there is any better alternative that chkdsk for such a
>>>> scenario?
>>>> Thanks a lot in advance.
>>

Ok, I get that, but I have been running a chkdsk /r on a 1TB iScsi SAN (RAID
5 Serial ATA 750GB drives with Hot Spare) for about 3 hours now and it
appears like it is "stuck" in one spot. Specifically it has been on step 2
verifying indexes for the majority of that time. It found one error in step
one and and a few so far in index check but has been in this same spot for a
while:

CHKDSK is verifying files (stage 1 of 5)...
0 percent complete. (25000 of 818032 file records processed)
Deleting corrupt attribute record (128, "")
from file record segment 26016.
8 percent complete. (719426 of 818032 file records processed)
Deleting corrupt attribute record (128, "")
from file record segment 722554.
818032 file records processed.
File verification completed.
10 percent complete. (1 of 39 large file records processed)
Deleting orphan file record segment 17.
39 large file records processed.
0 bad file records processed.
0 EA records processed.
0 reparse records processed.
CHKDSK is verifying indexes (stage 2 of 5)...
Correcting error in index $O for file 25.
Correcting error in index $O for file 25.
Correcting error in index $O for file 25.
Correcting error in index $O for file 25.
Correcting error in index $O for file 25.
Correcting error in index $O for file 25.
Correcting error in index $O for file 25.
Correcting error in index $O for file 25.
Correcting error in index $O for file 25.
Correcting error in index $O for file 25.

My question would be twofold.

a. Does this sound normal? Or is it possible for the proccess to be "hung"
b. If this doesn't finish in the next few hours, is it safe to cancel the
operation? If I do what would be the implications, if any?

I'm running this off of a Windows 2003 VM that is running in an ESX set-up
with 2 hosts each 12GB RAM, dual proc, 2+ (don't remember the specifcs of the
clock speeds) I can tell it's still running or doing something as the VM is
very slow (others on the setup run as normal), however how long should I let
this continue.

Any info is helpful, thanks!


"Kenny Speer" wrote:

> Depends on:
> CPU cores and speed
> Memory amount and speed
> Type of connection to the storage array
> CPU throughput of storage array
> Type of disk setup on storage array
> etc etc etc
>
> Best bet is to run it for your system and then record it for later
> reference.
>
> JPagd wrote:
> > Ok I would be interested in seeing an answer to this, the link just takes me
> > right back to the news group.
> >
> > "Dave Patrick" wrote:
> >
> >> They may have an idea here. x-posted to: microsoft.public.storage
> >>
> >> http://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/en-us/default.aspx?dg=...rosoft.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
> >> Microsoft Certified Professional
> >> Microsoft MVP [Windows]
> >> http://www.microsoft.com/protect
> >>
> >>
> >> "maxkumar" wrote:
> >>> My apologies, but I forgot to mention that this T drive is configured as
> >>> RAID
> >>> 5 on the SAN storage. And there are no problems with the disk itself
> >>> since
> >>> the RAID manager does not show any bad sectors. The corruption problem is
> >>> with the file system and file allocation table, hence I wanted to run
> >>> chkdsk.
> >>> I suppose since this is a RAIDed drive, I will not be able to run chkdsk
> >>> with
> >>> /r option since the physical disk(s) are not exposed to windows in this
> >>> case?
> >>>
> >>> "maxkumar" wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>> I have a Windows 2000 Advanced Server (with SP4) machine in our
> >>>> production
> >>>> environment which is connected to a SAN storage. One of the drives in the
> >>>> SAN
> >>>> (mounted as drive letter T on the server) is corrupted. The capacity of
> >>>> that
> >>>> drive is 1.7 terabytes and there are about 3 million files currently on
> >>>> that
> >>>> drive (used space about 1.2 TB). I would like to run a chkdsk on the
> >>>> drive
> >>>> with /f /r arguments. Can anyone help me provide a rough gauge on how
> >>>> long
> >>>> will chkdsk take to run on such a large drive? I know there will be a
> >>>> significant downtime required, but I want to get a rough idea on how long
> >>>> will that be so that I can tell my customers what to expect. Also, please
> >>>> let
> >>>> me know if there is any better alternative that chkdsk for such a
> >>>> scenario?
> >>>> Thanks a lot in advance.
> >>
>