*More* Running CHKDSK--Issue
in [Windows XP]
|
From: Johnw on 27 May 2010 07:14 Joe McGuire brought next idea : > Ah, now I understand. I was looking in the wrong stuff (in System instead of > Applications). I see the results of CHKDSK. It shows 0 KB in bad sectors. > Is this consistent with a bad hard drive? > Yep, that is why I googled for a link, to support the info from Volunteer J. Your HD is Ok. hard drive bad sectors http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&source=hp&q=hard+drive+bad+sectors&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=78fc47fc95da0446 http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1583&page=3 http://www.topbits.com/bad-sector.html --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Joe McGuire on 27 May 2010 10:51 That's a relief! Thanks! But I am scratching my head. If there are no bad sectors in the HD, why did the initial computer diagnostic I ran report a bad HD? Are these different tests? Is one more reliable than the other? Did CHKDSK "fix" whatever might have been wrong and then report 0 kb in bad sectors? This laptop is 5 years old so I have had already been thinking it might be time for a new one--before this problem hit.. "Johnw" <johnmattmel(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:htlk80$31a9$1(a)adenine.netfront.net... > Joe McGuire brought next idea : >> Ah, now I understand. I was looking in the wrong stuff (in System >> instead of Applications). I see the results of CHKDSK. It shows 0 KB in >> bad sectors. Is this consistent with a bad hard drive? >> > Yep, that is why I googled for a link, to support the info from Volunteer > J. > > Your HD is Ok. > > hard drive bad sectors > > http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&source=hp&q=hard+drive+bad+sectors&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=78fc47fc95da0446 > > http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1583&page=3 > > http://www.topbits.com/bad-sector.html > > > > --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Db on 27 May 2010 13:12 the check disk is also used to reconcile the files in the file system with the master file table. it is likely that your system appropriately advised you of an impending crash with the master file table and recommended a check disk. you might consider running a check disk and a defrag on a semi regular basis to keep both the file and disk system tuned up. the microsoft free one care online scanner is convenient to use. -- -- db���`�...�><)))�> DatabaseBen, Retired Professional ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This NNTP newsgroup is evolving to: http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/default.aspx "Joe McGuire" <mcguirejw(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:#LaMVwa$KHA.5476(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > That's a relief! Thanks! But I am scratching my head. If there are no > bad sectors in the HD, why did the initial computer diagnostic I ran > report a bad HD? Are these different tests? Is one more reliable than > the other? Did CHKDSK "fix" whatever might have been wrong and then report > 0 kb in bad sectors? This laptop is 5 years old so I have had already > been thinking it might be time for a new one--before this problem hit.. > > "Johnw" <johnmattmel(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:htlk80$31a9$1(a)adenine.netfront.net... >> Joe McGuire brought next idea : >>> Ah, now I understand. I was looking in the wrong stuff (in System >>> instead of Applications). I see the results of CHKDSK. It shows 0 KB >>> in bad sectors. Is this consistent with a bad hard drive? >>> >> Yep, that is why I googled for a link, to support the info from Volunteer >> J. >> >> Your HD is Ok. >> >> hard drive bad sectors >> >> http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&source=hp&q=hard+drive+bad+sectors&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=78fc47fc95da0446 >> >> http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1583&page=3 >> >> http://www.topbits.com/bad-sector.html >> >> >> >> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net --- > >
From: Paul on 27 May 2010 14:26 Joe McGuire wrote: > That's a relief! Thanks! But I am scratching my head. If there are no bad > sectors in the HD, why did the initial computer diagnostic I ran report a > bad HD? Are these different tests? Is one more reliable than the other? > Did CHKDSK "fix" whatever might have been wrong and then report 0 kb in bad > sectors? This laptop is 5 years old so I have had already been thinking it > might be time for a new one--before this problem hit.. > Hard drives have something called SMART. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.M.A.R.T. If you enable SMART at the BIOS level, it is possible for the BIOS to "predict hard drive failure". It is based on some of the SMART parameter values being exceeded. A message might pop up when you turn on the computer, and the BIOS is sending the message to you. SMART can also be observed at the OS level. It can be observed as long as the necessary SMART query commands can be sent over the interface. If you have a SMART equipped drive, connected to some RAID controllers, it is possible for the SMART functions to be blocked, and then you lose the ability to predict hard drive failure. For example, Silicon Image makes some RAID controllers that emulate normal drives, where the SMART would be blocked due to the emulation (the controller cannot effectively combine the test results from two drives, to control the error stats for the emulated drive). You can use HDTune from hdtune.com, to view the current SMART statistics. Use the "Health" tab to view the data for your drive. And no, it isn't easy to understand the info in that table... http://www.hdtune.com/files/hdtune_255.exe Even if there are no bad sectors, a drive still may not be healthy. Some other parameter may have been exceeded. Some of the SMART parameters are more important than others. For example "Current Pending Sector" is the number of sectors that need to be tested on the next write to them, as they've been flagged during attempts to read them. If they fail to be written on the next try, they need to be spared out. The drive has spare sectors, which can be used to substitute for defective ones. A large pending count could spell trouble, as it means there is degradation in process. If what you've seen is a SMART warning of impending failure, you'd *immediately* want to make a backup to an external drive. And perhaps start investigating the make, model number, capacity and so on, of the drive in the laptop, so you can buy a spare and have it on hand. A SMART based warning is precisely that, a warning. SMART doesn't know if the failure will be tomorrow or a year from now, but the writing is on the wall. Drives can fail, without any SMART parameter being exceeded in advance. For example, a firmware data structure in the drive controller, can overflow, and prevent the drive from starting up. That would be an example, where there isn't a mechanical failure mechanism at work, so no degradation can be observed in that case. Paul
From: Joe McGuire on 27 May 2010 17:50 Thanks! I read about the SMART stuff and I will see if I can put it to work. Fortunately, I regulalry back everything up to an external drive. Learned that lesson some years ago. The hard way, of course. "Paul" <nospam(a)needed.com> wrote in message news:htmdg9$naf$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... > Joe McGuire wrote: >> That's a relief! Thanks! But I am scratching my head. If there are no >> bad sectors in the HD, why did the initial computer diagnostic I ran >> report a bad HD? Are these different tests? Is one more reliable than >> the other? Did CHKDSK "fix" whatever might have been wrong and then >> report 0 kb in bad sectors? This laptop is 5 years old so I have had >> already been thinking it might be time for a new one--before this problem >> hit.. >> > > Hard drives have something called SMART. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.M.A.R.T. > > If you enable SMART at the BIOS level, it is possible for the > BIOS to "predict hard drive failure". It is based on some of the > SMART parameter values being exceeded. A message might pop up when > you turn on the computer, and the BIOS is sending the message to > you. > > SMART can also be observed at the OS level. It can be observed > as long as the necessary SMART query commands can be sent over > the interface. > > If you have a SMART equipped drive, connected to some RAID controllers, > it is possible for the SMART functions to be blocked, and then you lose > the ability to predict hard drive failure. For example, Silicon Image > makes some RAID controllers that emulate normal drives, where the SMART > would be blocked due to the emulation (the controller cannot effectively > combine the test results from two drives, to control the error stats for > the emulated drive). > > You can use HDTune from hdtune.com, to view the current SMART statistics. > Use the "Health" tab to view the data for your drive. And no, it isn't > easy to understand the info in that table... > > http://www.hdtune.com/files/hdtune_255.exe > > Even if there are no bad sectors, a drive still may not be healthy. > Some other parameter may have been exceeded. Some of the SMART parameters > are more important than others. For example "Current Pending Sector" > is the number of sectors that need to be tested on the next write to them, > as they've been flagged during attempts to read them. If they fail > to be written on the next try, they need to be spared out. The drive > has spare sectors, which can be used to substitute for defective ones. > A large pending count could spell trouble, as it means there is > degradation in process. > > If what you've seen is a SMART warning of impending failure, you'd > *immediately* want to make a backup to an external drive. And perhaps > start investigating the make, model number, capacity and so on, of > the drive in the laptop, so you can buy a spare and have it on hand. > A SMART based warning is precisely that, a warning. SMART doesn't know > if the failure will be tomorrow or a year from now, but the writing > is on the wall. > > Drives can fail, without any SMART parameter being exceeded in advance. > For example, a firmware data structure in the drive controller, can > overflow, and prevent the drive from starting up. That would be an > example, where there isn't a mechanical failure mechanism at work, > so no degradation can be observed in that case. > > Paul
First
|
Prev
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 Prev: Running CHKDSK--Issue Next: Apple surpasses M$ in market capitalization |