-
October 20th, 2008, 03:36 PM
#11
Originally Posted by Und3ertak3r
IF it is not a hardware failure.. AND it was a simple problem due to Filesystem Database error as the result of a bad shutdown.. AND CHKDSK was let loose.. yes system files WILL be damaged..
AND FAT32 is many times more likely to suffer damage.. and more likely to have CHKDSK remove vital system files...
Ahh ic I never really considered that 'coping ability' so to speak of the file system. Obviously NTFS is more preferable for all the reasons of storage, accessibility and security - However, in a critical event, i assumed it was just more that could go wrong.
Intrigued
CTO
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius --- and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction."
- Albert Einstein
-
October 20th, 2008, 03:37 PM
#12
Originally Posted by morganlefay
I have been working with computers for several years and have never seen chkdsk fluck up a system...or drive unless it was ready to fail...usually there are other issues present.
I have seen corrupted installs where chkdsk couldnt fix it...and I have seen drives with bad sectors where chkdsk moved the files and marked the area not for use.....and the system has hummed away for years after.
as always as backup of any system should be performed before running any disc or recovery utilities.
What was the reason for running chkdsk in the first place??
MLF
not to be argumentative.. but just because someone has never seen something is not reason to think it doesn't exist..
I do find the tone of your opening comment more on the confronting side.. but your not one to try to wind someone up .. are you..
"Consumer technology now exceeds the average persons ability to comprehend how to use it..give up hope of them being able to understand how it works." - Me http://www.cybercrypt.co.nr
-
October 20th, 2008, 03:47 PM
#13
Originally Posted by CybertecOne
Ahh ic I never really considered that 'coping ability' so to speak of the file system. Obviously NTFS is more preferable for all the reasons of storage, accessibility and security - However, in a critical event, i assumed it was just more that could go wrong.
Intrigued
CTO
Not the File system expert.. there are people who can give you the full goss on the pro's and con's of the various file systems..
with MS some times even the OS does not have enough robustness/intelligence to survive some simple filesystem stuff-ups.. like recognising that the file error is in a system file and restoring a copy from cache.. instead of moving the whole thing off to a bin some where.. in the vain hope the user is able to work out wtf the file is and where it should come from and how to restore a valid working copy.. with a non functioning OS..
just one dll is all it takes to kill XP.. but just hiding a few files in the System32 folder can make it mighty ill with out complete death...
"Consumer technology now exceeds the average persons ability to comprehend how to use it..give up hope of them being able to understand how it works." - Me http://www.cybercrypt.co.nr
-
October 20th, 2008, 03:49 PM
#14
not to be argumentative.. but just because someone has never seen something is not reason to think it doesn't exist..
I do find the tone of your opening comment more on the confronting side.. but your not one to try to wind someone up .. are you..
Its not worth it MLF.... walk away.
---
IMO, the cause and effect of a file system error is universal across all file systems. What could cause a catastrophic issue on one particular FS, can do the same damage on any other FS.
Therefore, I cannot agree that FAT32 file systems have any effect or contribution to ANY problem caused as described, or any problem i have encountered in my many years in IT.
Originally Posted by Und3ertak3r
Most likely... When I have encountered that sort of issue .. the Drive was formatted under FAT32..
I therefore pose that the above statement is entirely non-sensical/erroneous.
The mere fact that most of the machines in which you have encountered problems have a FAT32 FS is entirely co-incidental, as in my experience the file system of a machine does not play into any equation unless considering data recovery or changes to the existing file system. I honestly cannot think of a time when i thought to myself during diagnosis, "oh, i better check what the FS was" ... "just in case that is what caused the problem"
CTO
Last edited by CybertecOne; October 20th, 2008 at 03:54 PM.
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius --- and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction."
- Albert Einstein
-
October 20th, 2008, 05:43 PM
#15
I do find the tone of your opening comment more on the confronting side.. but your not one to try to wind someone up .. are you..
who me???
only people that are easily wound...
MLF
]EDIT> excellent article on troubleshooting disk issues with MS oses
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/l.../bb457122.aspx
Last edited by morganlefay; October 20th, 2008 at 06:01 PM.
Reason: add content
How people treat you is their karma- how you react is yours-Wayne Dyer
-
October 20th, 2008, 10:06 PM
#16
Originally Posted by nihil
Yes, running chkdsk on a drive that has physical problems will only make things worse.
Not necessarily. I replaced two harddrives in as
many days last week both of which generated errors
when Ghost was run. Until I used "chkdsk /r" (both
times the file system got repaired), there was no
way to ghost the things. So, obviously, chkdsk can
make a HDD better, at least temporarily. But such
a repair is not something you want to count on unless
it's for a recovery.
What IS interesting was both drives were SATA
and chkdsk would not repair the system when run
natively from the installed OS (both XP). When
I booted off a PE disk and ran chkdsk, they were
repaired. That's a first (for me). Something to
bear in as you see more SATA drives.
“Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.” — Will Rogers
-
October 21st, 2008, 02:02 AM
#17
chkdisk cannot run and repair on the drive while the OS is loaded ...and should ask you if you want to run on a restart so it can lock the drive\files as it tests the integrety of the file system and looks for corrupted files and damaged sectors on the drive.
And depending on the size of the drive and number of files can take a very long time.
If I suspect a drive failing...I usually slave it into another machine and backup the data...then use that machine to run chkdsk on the drive....in a sense using a boot disk.
If a drive is failing you usually will have issues with writing to the disk, slow boot...maybe clicking noises and errors in the event log.
Slaving the drive or using a boot disk to read and copy data puts less stress on the drive as there is minimal writing...
Then when running utilities such as chkdsk may kill the drive ...if it is physically damaged beyond the point of repair. .... else it will mark the damaged area and not use it...move the files to another area and.......... voila....you are up and running again. Now if this was a mission critical machine...I would consider replacing the drive.
But thats just me....and my ever so humble opinion on the matter
MLF
Last edited by morganlefay; October 21st, 2008 at 04:05 AM.
Reason: grammer error... :P
How people treat you is their karma- how you react is yours-Wayne Dyer
-
October 21st, 2008, 05:32 AM
#18
Then when running utilities such as chkdsk may kill the drive ...if it is physically damaged beyond the point of repair. .... else it will mark the damaged area and not use it...move the files to another area and.......... voila....you are up and running again
Replacing the drive is always the best way to go; new drive, new warranty, less wear and tear etc
I just wanted to point out that if it is a logical problem with the sectors (or even physical damage) and chkdsk marks those sectors as bad and moves the data, you wont have any future problems from the same cause.
However, if the physical damage is affecting moving parts (heads, bearings), expect the drive to continue to degrade even after chkdsk has done its work.
CTO
Last edited by CybertecOne; October 21st, 2008 at 05:35 AM.
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius --- and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction."
- Albert Einstein
-
October 21st, 2008, 01:59 PM
#19
You are absolutely right CTO.....
I just meant that the only time I have seen chkdsk fluck up a drive was one already damaged....and that I have used chkdsk to recover a few machines...that went on humming for a couple of years.
I guess my point would be backup backup backup before doing anything
MLF
How people treat you is their karma- how you react is yours-Wayne Dyer
-
October 21st, 2008, 02:02 PM
#20
Originally Posted by morganlefay
chkdisk cannot run and repair on the drive while the OS is loaded ...and should ask you if you want to run on a restart so it can lock the drive\files as it tests the integrety of the file system and looks for corrupted files and damaged sectors on the drive.
I'm well aware of how chkdsk works. It's strange, I'd never seen anything like this until last week. Both machines would hang at a certain point after the mandatory reboot and chkdsk started. One machine we left running for hours on end and it just sat at 43% during stage 4 once it got to that point. Then booting to a PE disk, chkdsk would work right thru, albeit slowly, and fixed the file system. Like I said, something to bear in mind.
Originally Posted by morganlefay
If I suspect a drive failing...I usually slave it into another machine and backup the data...then use that machine to run chkdsk on the drive....in a sense using a boot disk.
If a drive is failing you usually will have issues with writing to the disk, slow boot...maybe clicking noises and errors in the event log.
Slaving the drive or using a boot disk to read and copy data puts less stress on the drive as there is minimal writing...
Then when running utilities such as chkdsk may kill the drive ...if it is physically damaged beyond the point of repair. .... else it will mark the damaged area and not use it...move the files to another area and.......... voila....you are up and running again. Now if this was a mission critical machine...I would consider replacing the drive.
I do mostly field work and some clients can be hesitant about sensitive data, especially acct'ing, being copied over to one of my laptops. So I use bootdisks and usb drives to do backups generally, then run chkdsk in an attempt to prepare the file system for ghosting. Reinstalling from scratch is less profitable from my standpoint and I get less whining if I manage to restore the computer to it's former state.
“Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.” — Will Rogers
Similar Threads
-
By bagggi in forum Operating Systems
Replies: 24
Last Post: December 23rd, 2005, 02:02 PM
-
By gore in forum Operating Systems
Replies: 3
Last Post: March 7th, 2004, 08:02 AM
-
By Shakira in forum Newbie Security Questions
Replies: 9
Last Post: February 16th, 2004, 10:07 AM
-
By gore in forum Newbie Security Questions
Replies: 11
Last Post: December 29th, 2003, 08:01 AM
-
By Noble Hamlet in forum AntiOnline's General Chit Chat
Replies: 1100
Last Post: March 17th, 2002, 09:38 AM
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|