CHKDSK in DOS box vs GUI

[Aloke Prasad]

Is running the disk checker in the GUI mode (right_click the
drive->Properties->Tools->Error-checking) the same as running CHKDSK in a
DOS box?

I ran the GUI mode (including Scan_for_and_attempt_recovery_of_bad_sectors)
and got no errors on an external USB drive, but running CHKDSK in a DOS box
found errors. I was having problems accessing files on the drive.

==
C:\Documents and Settings\Aloke>chkdsk i: /x /f /r
The type of the file system is FAT32.
Volume BACKUP created 9/27/2003 2:33 PM
Volume Serial Number is 196B-13E6
Windows is verifying files and folders...
Windows replaced bad clusters in file \Archana PC\Archana on
1_16_06\01160005.GHS of name (null).
Windows replaced bad clusters in file \new PC\a.zip of name (null).
File and folder verification is complete.
Windows is verifying free space...
Free space verification is complete.
Windows has made corrections to the file system.
245,051,840 KB total disk space.
18,208 KB in 87 hidden files.
154,592 KB in 4,793 folders.
103,105,472 KB in 58,386 files.
96 KB in bad sectors.
141,773,440 KB are available.

32,768 bytes in each allocation unit.
7,657,870 total allocation units on disk.
4,430,420 allocation units available on disk.
==

What gives? Why didn't the GUI method find and fix the problems?

 

[paulmd]

There should be no difference.

I am concerned about your drive, however. It does have physical damage
to it. It could be either a one time deal, or symptomatic of a failing
drive. You should backup ASAP. And start looking around for a
replacement.

 

[Wesley Vogel]

What gives? Why didn't the GUI method find and fix the problems?

1. In My Computer or Windows Explorer, right-click the volume you want to
check, and then click Properties.
2. On the Tools tab, click Check Now.
3. You need to check one or both boxes.

o To run Chkdsk by using the /f parameter, select the Automatically fix file
system errors check box, and then click Start.

o To run Chkdsk by using the /r parameter, select the Scan for and attempt
recovery of bad sectors check box, and then click Start.

When you check *no* boxes it's the same thing as running chkdsk with no
switches, without /f or /r. That is the same as running CHKDSK in read-only
mode.

Running CHKDSK in read-only mode is a waste of time and prone to not
accurately reporting information. CHKDSK in read-only mode does not
require a reboot and might report spurious errors because it cannot lock the
drive.

[[Chkdsk might not accurately report information in read-only mode.]]
From...
Chkdsk
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/...windows/xp/all/reskit/en-us/prmb_tol_pwfd.asp

[[If you run chkdsk without the /f command-line option on an active
partition, it might report spurious errors because it cannot lock the
drive.]]

[[Using chkdsk with open files
If you specify the /f command-line option, chkdsk sends an error message if
there are open files on the disk. If you do not specify the /f command-line
option and open files exist, chkdsk might report lost allocation units on
the disk. This could happen if open files have not yet been recorded in the
file allocation table. If chkdsk reports the loss of a large number of
allocation units, consider repairing the disk.]]
From...
Chkdsk
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/chkdsk.mspx

[[In read-only mode, CHKDSK quits before it completes all three phases if it
encounters errors in earlier phases, and CHKDSK is prone to falsely
reporting errors. For example, CHKDSK may report disk corruption if NTFS
happens to modify areas of a disk while CHKDSK is examining the disk. For
correct verification, a volume must be static, and the only way to guarantee
a static state is to lock the volume. CHKDSK locks the volume only if you
specify the /F switch (or the /R switch, which implies /F). You may need to
run CHKDSK more than once to get CHKDSK to complete all its passes
in read-only mode. ]]
From...
An Explanation of the New C and I Switches That Are Available to Use with
Chkdsk.exe
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;314835

To take advantage of all the Chkdsk parameters, use the command-line version
of Chkdsk.

Describes how to use the chkdsk command at the command line.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/...WINDOWSXP/home/using/productdoc/en/chkdsk.asp

Understanding what CHKDSK does
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314835/en-us#XSLTH3154121123120121120120
From...
An explanation of the new /C and /I Switches that are available to use with
Chkdsk.exe
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314835

--
Hope this helps. Let us know.

Wes
MS-MVP Windows Shell/User

In

 

[Aloke Prasad]

I contacted Maxtor, but their warranty on external drives is for only 1
year. They don't provide any low-level format utility for this drive.

I'll probably get a WD drive as a replacement.

When I had bad sectors on a Seagate internal drive, they replaced it without
even asking about the date of purchase.
--
Aloke
----
to reply by e-mail remove 123 and change invalid to com

There should be no difference.

I am concerned about your drive, however. It does have physical damage
to it. It could be either a one time deal, or symptomatic of a failing
drive. You should backup ASAP. And start looking around for a
replacement.

 

[Aloke Prasad]

I did check the 2nd box (Scan_for_and_attempt_recovery_of_bad_sectors) in
the GUI. Thus my puzzlement about why that did not catch the errors (which
were there for sure). The surface scan took place because it took almost 30
min for the GUI check (and the subsequent CHKDSK check).
--
Aloke
----
to reply by e-mail remove 123 and change invalid to com

What gives? Why didn't the GUI method find and fix the problems?

1. In My Computer or Windows Explorer, right-click the volume you want to
check, and then click Properties.
2. On the Tools tab, click Check Now.
3. You need to check one or both boxes.

o To run Chkdsk by using the /f parameter, select the Automatically fix
file
system errors check box, and then click Start.

o To run Chkdsk by using the /r parameter, select the Scan for and attempt
recovery of bad sectors check box, and then click Start.

When you check *no* boxes it's the same thing as running chkdsk with no
switches, without /f or /r. That is the same as running CHKDSK in
read-only
mode.

Running CHKDSK in read-only mode is a waste of time and prone to not
accurately reporting information. CHKDSK in read-only mode does not
require a reboot and might report spurious errors because it cannot lock
the
drive.

[[Chkdsk might not accurately report information in read-only mode.]]
From...
Chkdsk
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/...windows/xp/all/reskit/en-us/prmb_tol_pwfd.asp

[[If you run chkdsk without the /f command-line option on an active
partition, it might report spurious errors because it cannot lock the
drive.]]

[[Using chkdsk with open files
If you specify the /f command-line option, chkdsk sends an error message
if
there are open files on the disk. If you do not specify the /f
command-line
option and open files exist, chkdsk might report lost allocation units on
the disk. This could happen if open files have not yet been recorded in
the
file allocation table. If chkdsk reports the loss of a large number of
allocation units, consider repairing the disk.]]
From...
Chkdsk
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/chkdsk.mspx

[[In read-only mode, CHKDSK quits before it completes all three phases if
it
encounters errors in earlier phases, and CHKDSK is prone to falsely
reporting errors. For example, CHKDSK may report disk corruption if NTFS
happens to modify areas of a disk while CHKDSK is examining the disk. For
correct verification, a volume must be static, and the only way to
guarantee
a static state is to lock the volume. CHKDSK locks the volume only if you
specify the /F switch (or the /R switch, which implies /F). You may need
to
run CHKDSK more than once to get CHKDSK to complete all its passes
in read-only mode. ]]
From...
An Explanation of the New C and I Switches That Are Available to Use with
Chkdsk.exe
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;314835

To take advantage of all the Chkdsk parameters, use the command-line
version
of Chkdsk.

Describes how to use the chkdsk command at the command line.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/...WINDOWSXP/home/using/productdoc/en/chkdsk.asp

Understanding what CHKDSK does
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314835/en-us#XSLTH3154121123120121120120
From...
An explanation of the new /C and /I Switches that are available to use
with
Chkdsk.exe
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314835

--
Hope this helps. Let us know.

Wes
MS-MVP Windows Shell/User

In

 

[Gerry Peters]

I think it better under DOS. I know if Scandisk fails and has an error that
scandisk can't complete the scan and fix errors, then I run Command prompt,
type the drive letter, and CHKDSK /r and it finds and fixes the problems.
Sometimes it will do it under XP in a DOS window, other times it asks if it
can reboot and do it during the bootup routine.

I've had to do this far more often for a USB HD, in fact I'm having 2nd
thoughts on the reliability of USB HD's in general. Check out my post right
before yours.

Gerry Peters

 

[cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)]

There should be no difference.

Try it on FATxx volumes... I suspect this is the real reason why FATxx
is considered "risky" on XP.

I am concerned about your drive, however. It does have physical damage
Agreed...

It could be either a one time deal, or symptomatic of a failing
drive. You should backup ASAP. And start looking around for a
replacement.

One-time deal? I would never assume so. Let's say it's a head crash;
chances are the head's alignment and signal strength may be affected,
and/or the sealed airspace may be polluted with abrasive debris.

Aloke Prasad wrote:

That has been typical mileage with FATxx in XP, especially comparing
GUI "check for errors" with DOS mode Scandisk.

Then yes, expect that mileage. This has little to do with FATxx, and
everything to do with the uselessness of NT's file system tools.

Consider both files to be suspect (this is why it's important to log
such reasults!)

Thus 3 x bad clusters. At the least, I'd check the hD using HD Tune
(all tests) free from www.hdtune.com

As I say, that has been *typical* mileage with the GUI "check disk"
and both FAT16 and FAT32. I tested this and verified results by
creating deliberate file system anomolies via DiskEdit in DOS mode
(e.g. editing FAT chaining from 23,24,25 to 23,23,25), and found the
GUI "check for errors" took no time at all and found nothing, whereas
Scandisk took longer and found exactly what you'd expect it to find.

It's almost as if the GUI check is merely testing the two error flags
within the file system; the same ones used by AutoChk on startup...

------------------------ ---- --- -- - - - -

On a bad day I'm tired and irritable.
On a good day I'm just tired.
Sorry if this is a bad day

 

[Aloke Prasad]

Thank you all for your help.

My immediate goal is to take the drive to work and copy all the data to
another external drive.
Then I'll buy another such drive (not Maxtor, though).

I need the portability, as I use the drives to Ghost my 3 home PC's.

 

[Aloke Prasad]

I ordered this product
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822173023

Not bad for 7200 rpm 300 GB drive.

I'll try to replace the Maxtor drive (in the enclosure, which should still
be OK) with another "internal" drive.

I copied all my data over without loss.

I have 2 follow-up Q's:

1. Is there a good 3rd party utility that's better than CHKDSK? Spinrite?

2. Who is making good reliable drives thesedays?

 

[cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)]

On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 21:58:32 -0500, "Gerry Peters"

I think it better under DOS. I know if Scandisk fails and has an error that
scandisk can't complete the scan and fix errors, then I run Command prompt,
type the drive letter, and CHKDSK /r and it finds and fixes the problems.

Any problem "fixed" only by /r is almost certain (I'd say, certain) to
be a physically ill HD, for which there is no "fix" other than
replacement (preferably via warranty, heh)

Sometimes it will do it under XP in a DOS window, other times it asks if it
can reboot and do it during the bootup routine.

C: generally needs the second.

I've had to do this far more often for a USB HD, in fact I'm having 2nd
thoughts on the reliability of USB HD's in general. Check out my post right
before yours.

Yep, my impression is that external HDs die like flies, even after you
exclude mishandling and user-failure factors. I'd treat an
externall-enclosed HD as if it were as flaky as a diskette or
paint-on-plastic CDR/DVDR, and make sure I have another copy of the
content elsewhere if it isn't still on an internal HD as well.

As to HDs with "just one bad cluster" (e.g. as "fixed" by ChkDsk /r or
Scandisk surface scan etc.) I might use them to carry wads of stuff
across the room, but that is about all.

-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

Tip Of The Day:
To disable the 'Tip of the Day' feature...

 

[Aloke Prasad]

I wonder why that's the case. I was very careful in handling my drive.

Surely they use the same "internal" drives inside the enclosures ..

 

[paulmd]

I ordered this product
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822173023

Not bad for 7200 rpm 300 GB drive.

I'll try to replace the Maxtor drive (in the enclosure, which should still
be OK) with another "internal" drive.

I copied all my data over without loss.

I have 2 follow-up Q's:

1. Is there a good 3rd party utility that's better than CHKDSK? Spinrite?

Spinrite is excellent. It can actually recover data from bad drives. It
actually can repair damage, it claims, and many people swear by it.

2. Who is making good reliable drives thesedays?

Fewer and fewer companies. Maxtor bought Quantum, Seagate bought
Maxtor. IBM is now Hitachi, Fujitsu is dissappearing. Western Digital
is OK.

Seagate has been a top name for a long time. I've seen a lot of reports
on these newsgroups relating to failing Maxtor drives.

 

[paulmd]

I ordered this product
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16822173023

Not bad for 7200 rpm 300 GB drive.

I'll try to replace the Maxtor drive (in the enclosure, which should still
be OK) with another "internal" drive.

I copied all my data over without loss.

I have 2 follow-up Q's:

1. Is there a good 3rd party utility that's better than CHKDSK? Spinrite?

Spinrite is excellent. It can actually recover data from bad drives. It
actually can repair damage, it claims, and many people swear by it.

2. Who is making good reliable drives thesedays?

Fewer and fewer companies. Maxtor bought Quantum, Seagate bought
Maxtor. IBM is now Hitachi, Fujitsu is dissappearing. Western Digital
is OK.

Seagate has been a top name for a long time. I've seen a lot of reports
on these newsgroups relating to failing Maxtor drives.

 

[cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)]

On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 17:39:52 -0400, "Aloke Prasad"

I have 2 follow-up Q's:

1. Is there a good 3rd party utility that's better than CHKDSK?

To fix FATxx file systems on volumes/HDs < 137G in a similar way to
ChkDsk and ChkDsk /F, the Scandisk.exe from Win9x DOS mode is better.
Unlike ChkDsk, it allows you to interact with the process of "fixing"
file system errors, so that you can judge what the tool will do and
refuse to allow it to continue if it's about to do something stupid.
Scandisk.exe for DOS Mode runs only from DOS Mode, not Windows.

You can also delve deeper in these cases by using Norton Disk Edit and
UnErase for DOS Mode, as shipped with Norton Utilities. UnErase
allows you to select files and unerase them if they haven't been
overwritten, irrespective of Recycle Bin status; LFNs are not
preserved. DiskEdit starts with the same sort of diagnostics as
Scandisk or ChkDsk, but does not auto-fixing; instead, you can edit
the file system and file contents directly, no holds barred.

For FATxx > 137G, there's less available because DOS mode (and tools
based on this) is not OK > 137G.

For NTFS, there's nothing other than the accursed ChkDsk.

For both FATxx and NTFS, there are several "auto-recovery" tools,
usually not free. Some don't write to the at-risk file system and are
thus safe; others try to "fix" things automatically, and can thus
botch things considerably. Most can't really cope with anything more
complcated than a lost boot record or so.

To do what ChkDsk /R does, i.e. test the surface of the disk, there's
DOS Mode Scandisk for FATxx < 137G again, but a better choice would be
the free HD Tune from www.hdtune.com, which ignores the file system
and partitioning completely, concentrating instead on testing the
hardware of the hard drive in the following ways:
- HD temperature, updated in real time while other tests are on
- SMART detail, also updated in real time while other tests are on
- quick and thorough surface scans of entire physical drive
- benchmark tests of data transfer speed, etc.
HD Tune is for IDE and S-ATA hard drives; it can do surface tests and
benchmarks on other devices (e.g. SD cards and USB sticks) and hard
drives hidden from direct access (e.g. within an external USB
enclosure) but can't show SMART info or temperature in such cases.

Finally, to create, copy, resize and store partitions and logicals,
there are tools such as BootIT NG from www.bootitng.com; unlike the
broken XP disk prep tool, this can compitently create FAT32 volumes
and partitions over 32G in size.

2. Who is making good reliable drives thesedays?

I tend to go Seagate, because they offer a 5-year warranty. Don't
accept anything less than 3 years. But there isn't a brand of hard
drive that I've seen that I haven't seen failures too.

---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

On the 'net, *everyone* can hear you scream

 

[cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)]

On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 18:09:21 -0400, "Aloke Prasad"

I wonder why that's the case. I was very careful in handling my drive.
Surely they use the same "internal" drives inside the enclosures ..

Yes and no. Yes, you can buy a generic external enclosure and put
your own choice of IDE or S-ATA drive in it - but you also get
retail-friendly "branded" external drives, and often these use the
lamest hard drives available.

I think factors that kill drives are:
- overheating
- electrical misadventure
- mechanical shock

In addition, several things trash file systems:
- removing drive while writes pending or in progress
- PCs with different BIOS HD geometry
- use of large HDs on PCs without > 137G support

I remember the same sort of hassles with internal removable drive
brackets (fits into a 5.25" bay, with the drive in a "drawer" that
slides into this). The first ones were usually plastic (no
metal-to-metal contact with drive shassis to conduct off heat), had
tight poorly-ventillated drawers, and no fans. Hard drives died in
these things, so newer ones came out with multiple cooling fans and
open top and bottom to promote air flow.

Today's drives are hotter, and yes the external brackets I see are
extermely tight-fitting, have no ventillation at all, and no fans or
other cooling devices either.

Looks we like have to learn the same lessons all over again?

------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

Our senses are our UI to reality

 

[BitBucket]

cquirke:

Couldn't agree more on all your comments relative to heat and the
removable drive enclosures. I've used them all for years, and every
drive I've ever had has failed. Went to three-fan racks (not
removable) in Antec cases, and the temps on 200-400 GB drives typically
less than 90 degrees F now per SMART monitoring.

-- Roy Zider