Jump to content

bad sectors and still using it ?


vinifera

Recommended Posts

i dont understand the logic with NTOS and chkdisk usage...
in last 3 years my HDD started to get bad sectors, not too much, im at 5 bad secs now

but even if i run chkdisk from time to time hoping that windows will "mark" them and not use them
it still copies stuff on them and later i cant run stuff that is partially written on those places...

so what the hell ?
is chkdisk useless ?
how to force windoze not to use those places ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


How (exactly) are you running chkdisk?

https://www.overclock.net/forum/132-windows/1603282-what-does-chkdsk-b-argument-do.html

In any case on modern disks it makes very little sense, bad sectors should be remapped internally to the disk long before they are found/mapped by windows, the fact you see them might mean that there are some problems at hard disk level, like the amount of spare sectors already used.

You need to run the manufaturer tools or some third party disk level tools to check the condition and health of the disk, whether this info is available may depend on the specific hard disk make/model.

jaclaz 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, :)

Which makes little sense,

/R and /B imply /F.

/R and /B are somehow contrasting options.

/R scans areas NOT marked as bad (i.e. not listed in $BadClus) and sees if there is anything to be added to the list.

/B scan all volume and "judges" whether areas already marked as bad can be "promoted" to good and adds any bad area to the list. 

If you prefer, /R trusts the existing info in $Badclus, whilst /B ignores it and represents a sort of "second opinion".

Still on modern media, any bad (or even "weak") sector should normally be detected by the controller and remapped to a good spare sector well before and besides any chkdisk activity.

Get a tool that can read the S.M.A.R.T data, example[1]:

https://hddscan.com/

look for items #5. 187, 188, 197 and 198:
https://www.backblaze.com/blog/what-smart-stats-indicate-hard-drive-failures/

and post what you get on that disk.

Post the exact make/model of the disk, usually there are manufacturer tool that can do deeper analysis of the device.

jaclaz

[1] there is a much more compact and nifty as usual tool by Nirsoft :), but it doesn't show the SMART parameter numbers;
https://www.nirsoft.net/utils/disk_smart_view.html

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strange that you have not values 187 and 188, however the 197 and 198 (that more or less reflect the 5-7 bad sectors you reported) do not look good, particularly if coupled with the recent increase of failed RAW reads.

The fact that it is a 320 GB drive is a good thing as - likely - it has a relatively low data density and - empirically - they tend to suffer less from "diffusion" of bad sectors (when compared to - say -  1 or 2 TB ones).

What I would do if I were you:

1) of course have a verified backup
2) run the WDC testing tool: https://support.wdc.com/downloads.aspx?p=3 (extended test, which is not "data destructive" and may help in re-mapping the currently bad sectors[1])
3) see if the disk drive "passes"

Then, if it passes, and if (see note below) the tool manages to remap those bad sectors you are good to go.

If it doesn't, it doesn't mean that you have to throw the disk in the trash :ph34r:, only consider how it surely has lost some (most) of its reliability.

Anecdotally, once, many years ago, I had a (Samung) 4.3 GB disk (no, it is not a typo) that developed a "cluster" of bad sectors (some 80-100 of them) all in a definite area.
At the time I demoted it to secundary backup media , and partitioned it in such a way that a few MB around the area containing the bad sectors was unused in the partition table, and it never failed (though of course it was much less used than when inside the actual PC).

If the bad sectors seem to be all in a same area, you could try doing the same.

jaclaz

 

 

[1] please understand how, even if the disk drive "passes", there is a risk that the test will find an increased number of bad sectors, however, after the test they should be re-mapped and not be seen in chkdsk, at least in theory

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, vinifera said:

so too offered to repair bad sectors, i said OK

then result:

SMART Status: PASS

Test Result: PASS

 

Good :), but do you still have those bad sectors in chkdsk (or other OS level tool) now?

jaclaz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes, it still sees them

 

CHKDSK is verifying files (stage 1 of 5)...
  77312 file records processed.                                         

File verification completed.
  44 large file records processed.                                   

  0 bad file records processed.                                     

  2 EA records processed.                                           

  60 reparse records processed.                                      

CHKDSK is verifying indexes (stage 2 of 5)...
  99538 index entries processed.                                        

Index verification completed.
  0 unindexed files scanned.                                        

  0 unindexed files recovered.                                      

CHKDSK is verifying security descriptors (stage 3 of 5)...
  77312 file SDs/SIDs processed.                                        

Cleaning up 37 unused index entries from index $SII of file 0x9.
Cleaning up 37 unused index entries from index $SDH of file 0x9.
Cleaning up 37 unused security descriptors.
Security descriptor verification completed.
  11114 data files processed.                                           

CHKDSK is verifying Usn Journal...
  1246896 USN bytes processed.                                            

Usn Journal verification completed.
Removing 1 clusters from the Bad Clusters File.
CHKDSK is verifying file data (stage 4 of 5)...
  77296 files processed.                                                

File data verification completed.
CHKDSK is verifying free space (stage 5 of 5)...
  19812042 free clusters processed.                                        

Free space verification is complete.
Adding 1 bad clusters to the Bad Clusters File.
Windows has made corrections to the file system.

140511231 KB total disk space.
61077768 KB in 57047 files.
36268 KB in 11115 indexes.
4 KB in bad sectors.
149023 KB in use by the system.
65536 KB occupied by the log file.
79248168 KB available on disk.

4096 bytes in each allocation unit.
35127807 total allocation units on disk.
19812042 allocation units available on disk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With which switch?

Is that with /B?

On 8/23/2020 at 8:08 PM, vinifera said:

                            

Usn Journal verification completed.
Removing 1 clusters from the Bad Clusters File.
CHKDSK is verifying file data (stage 4 of 5)...
  77296 files processed.                                                

File data verification completed.
CHKDSK is verifying free space (stage 5 of 5)...
  19812042 free clusters processed.                                        

Free space verification is complete.
Adding 1 bad clusters to the Bad Clusters File.
Windows has made corrections to the file system.

140511231 KB total disk space.
61077768 KB in 57047 files.
36268 KB in 11115 indexes.
4 KB in bad sectors.
149023 KB in use by the system.
65536 KB occupied by the log file.
79248168 KB available on disk.

4096 bytes in each allocation unit.
35127807 total allocation units on disk.
19812042 allocation units available on disk.

Added colour/bolding to the relevant entry.

Presuming that it is the same cluster which is first removed and then re-added :unsure:, it is one cluster in total. 

Assuming that (as it is normal) that NTFS fileystem is 4KB/cluster, a single "bad" sector (512 bytes) out of 8 in a cluster will cause the whole cluster to be added to the $BadClus.

Still it is strange that the manufacturer tool didn't find and remap it :dubbio:maybe that (those) are not really-really bad sectors but just weak/slow ones.

jaclaz

Edited by jaclaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

/f /b /r

 

but, it seems it did help
HD sentinel now only sees 1 bad sector and 1 weak sector
before it was 5 in total if im not mistaken

so does using microsoft scan disk even makes difference or should user avoid it ?

 

Edited by vinifera
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scandisk?

You mean Chkdsk?

However no, both are "high level", i.e. at filesystem level, chkdsk (and scandisk) simply take note of a bad cluster and promises (it has to be seen if the promise is maintained ;)) to never let NTFS use it again.

What may (should) have made a difference if the WD tool.

Buy if you have HD sentinel (the pro version not the free one) you can try "repairing" weak/slow sectors:

https://www.hdsentinel.com/hard_disk_case_weak_sectors.php

Alternative free tools may be Victoria for Windows, MHDD and hddat, all of these are very "powerful" tools, that if used incorrectly can easily make big holes in your hard dik, so they should be used with attention.

jaclaz

Edited by jaclaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
On 8/24/2020 at 8:49 AM, jaclaz said:

Buy if you have HD sentinel (the pro version not the free one)

jaclaz , hello . Could you know why the PRO version won't show the USB HDD temps anymore ? All of a sudden , it was working just fine the day before. It won't show the SMART values as well.

What I tried , I deleted all USB drivers (cleaned them with) DriveCleanup V0.7.0 . Freeware by Uwe Sieber - www.uwe-sieber.de . Rebooted . But it didn't help at all. The tool is good though !

Also, it says :

"status of the hard disk is unknown. The configuration does not provide further disk status information. However, "Disk" menu "Surface Test" function can examine the disk functionality, reveal and fix possible problems." Their supported told me that my external HDD box "is not capable of provoding the info" . Yet like I said , it did just the day before . Could this mean my USB ports are damaged ?

The disk itself works fine and I tried several different ones , all the same .

Thanks !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...