Bad Clusters vs. Bad Sectors
in [Storage]
|
From: Rod Speed on 12 Oct 2009 05:04 Ant wrote > Rod Speed wrote >>>>> So sectors is on the hardware and the low-level drivesr, >>>>> while clusters is in the (abstract) filesystem layer. >>>> Thanks! That makes more sense to me now. I did notice the updated >>>> Windows 2000 SP4's chkdsk /r /f said it found a bad cluster (think >>>> it was TIF file but can't remember and didn't watch the long >>>> chkdsk -- wished it had logging feature or paused to tell me the >>>> results before going back to Windows) and fixed it (moved it). >>>> Then, I did a normal chkdsk.exe in Windows 2000 session's cmd.exe >>>> but it didn't show any bad sectors (0 KB). I was confused there. >>> Is bad block same as bad cluster (OS side)? >> Yes. Is mostly MS OSs that call them clusters. > Ah OK. I guess there was no bad sector then on that old HDD then. Or there was a bad sector and the drive fixed it.
From: Ant on 12 Oct 2009 05:12 On 10/12/2009 2:04 AM PT, Rod Speed typed: >>>>>> So sectors is on the hardware and the low-level drivesr, >>>>>> while clusters is in the (abstract) filesystem layer. > >>>>> Thanks! That makes more sense to me now. I did notice the updated >>>>> Windows 2000 SP4's chkdsk /r /f said it found a bad cluster (think >>>>> it was TIF file but can't remember and didn't watch the long >>>>> chkdsk -- wished it had logging feature or paused to tell me the >>>>> results before going back to Windows) and fixed it (moved it). >>>>> Then, I did a normal chkdsk.exe in Windows 2000 session's cmd.exe >>>>> but it didn't show any bad sectors (0 KB). I was confused there. > >>>> Is bad block same as bad cluster (OS side)? > >>> Yes. Is mostly MS OSs that call them clusters. > >> Ah OK. I guess there was no bad sector then on that old HDD then. > > Or there was a bad sector and the drive fixed it. If there was a bad sector, wouldn't I see a bad sector shown in chkdsk? Hmm, maybe I should run SpinRite v5 on that HDD later. -- "He who runs from the white ant may stumble upon the stinging ant." --Nigeria /\___/\ / /\ /\ \ 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(a)earthlink.netANT ( ) or ANTant(a)zimage.com Ant is currently not listening to any songs on his home computer.
From: Rod Speed on 12 Oct 2009 15:00 Ant wrote > Rod Speed wrote >>>>>>> So sectors is on the hardware and the low-level drivesr, >>>>>>> while clusters is in the (abstract) filesystem layer. >>>>>> Thanks! That makes more sense to me now. I did notice the updated >>>>>> Windows 2000 SP4's chkdsk /r /f said it found a bad cluster >>>>>> (think it was TIF file but can't remember and didn't watch the >>>>>> long chkdsk -- wished it had logging feature or paused to tell >>>>>> me the results before going back to Windows) and fixed it (moved >>>>>> it). Then, I did a normal chkdsk.exe in Windows 2000 session's >>>>>> cmd.exe but it didn't show any bad sectors (0 KB). I was >>>>>> confused there. >>>>> Is bad block same as bad cluster (OS side)? >>>> Yes. Is mostly MS OSs that call them clusters. >>> Ah OK. I guess there was no bad sector then on that old HDD then. >> Or there was a bad sector and the drive fixed it. > If there was a bad sector, wouldn't I see a bad sector shown in chkdsk? Not necessarily. They arent necessarily always bad for every read. > Hmm, maybe I should run SpinRite v5 on that HDD later. Its completely useless now. The only thing that makes any sense anymore is the SMART data.
From: Arno on 12 Oct 2009 23:43 Ant <ant(a)zimage.comant> wrote: > On 10/5/2009 12:02 AM PT, Ant typed: >>> So sectors is on the hardware and the low-level drivesr, >>> while clusters is in the (abstract) filesystem layer. >> >> Thanks! That makes more sense to me now. I did notice the updated >> Windows 2000 SP4's chkdsk /r /f said it found a bad cluster (think it >> was TIF file but can't remember and didn't watch the long chkdsk -- >> wished it had logging feature or paused to tell me the results before >> going back to Windows) and fixed it (moved it). Then, I did a normal >> chkdsk.exe in Windows 2000 session's cmd.exe but it didn't show any bad >> sectors (0 KB). I was confused there. > Is bad block same as bad cluster (OS side)? Not quite. Low level there are no clusters. And high-level (filesystem) a bad cluster is a cluster (e.g. 4kB) with a bad sector in it (512B) Arno
From: Ant on 13 Oct 2009 00:13
On 10/12/2009 12:00 PM PT, Rod Speed typed: >> Hmm, maybe I should run SpinRite v5 on that HDD later. > > Its completely useless now. Really? How so? I remember using it in the past and finding bad sectors. > The only thing that makes any sense anymore is the SMART data. -- "It is said that the lonely eagle flies to the mountain peaks while the lowly ant crawls the ground, but cannot the soul of the ant soar as high as the eagle?" --unknown /\___/\ / /\ /\ \ 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(a)earthlink.netANT ( ) or ANTant(a)zimage.com Ant is currently not listening to any songs on his home computer. |