BleepingComputer.com: Replacing hard drive

That looks good. Thanks.

I am pleased to know that Murphy is not mucking about with that cloned PC!

You and me both, but dinner didn't fare as well!

I have to go thru my notes as I know I have a couple questions for you, but nothing critical. I must quit for now. Thanks so much for all you've done! Hope the rest of your day(which is my tomorrow!) goes well!

Ok, I created and formated the new partition on clone drive. That was easy-peasy, very slick, and I gained 37.20GB--thanks for that!

Is it ok to leave clone drive set to master, rather than default cable select? I don't anticipate ever installing another drive in with it. Have no burning desire to take tower apart again, but wanted to verify it's ok.

Also, are bad sectors same as bad blocks?

Terri13th, on 06 September 2011 - 08:41 PM, said:

I hope your dinner was edible!

You said: "I created and formatted the new partition on clone drive."
No worries.

You asked: "Is it ok to leave clone drive set to master?"
Yes, that is probably the best way to have it set.

You asked: "are bad sectors same as bad blocks?"
Good question: No, not necessarily, and in your case (as is generally the case), they are not exactly the same thing ... but for our previous purposes they are close enough to have been used interchangeably without too much drama. Having a bad block means you have a bad sector.

Quote

Source: http://wiki.lunarsoft.net/wiki/Data_Recovery
(Note: There are 8 bits to the byte (usually) ..... I once did attend a beginner's computer class, and that is about all I ever remembered from it! That may also have had something to do with me not continuing with the classes?)

Quote

Source: http://help.filemaker.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3815/~/drive-blocks-vs.-sectors---explained
(A note about the above quote: As far as I know, the information applies, whether the disk is formatted or not! I do not like using that quote, but do so only because it conveys clearly what I wanted to say.)

I just had to check: I booted with RIPLinuX and checked a 160.0 GB WD HDD (as it happens, un-formatted).

• There are 312579695 sectors, and each sector holds 512 bytes.
  
• So that gives the disk a total size of 512 x 312579695 = 160040803840 bytes (160 GB).
  
• There are 15628947 blocks reported when running badblocks .... meaning that each block holds 1024 bytes (or 2 sectors).
  (Just as well I did check: I was thinking there were 4096 bytes (8 sectors) in a block: It turns out to be only 1024 bytes! I don't have any education or formal background in computing .... so I have to bumble my way through technical-detail/stuff like this and find information/answers as best I can. I can only ever hope that I am not too far off the mark, and do not make a fool of myself!)

Hopefully, that will address your question satisfactorily.

Ok, so I'm getting that a block holds 2 sectors in my hdd. As I'm sure you well know, I'm trying to understand those pesky '64KB's in bad sector' that the first chk dsk runs found, back in post 175. I'm having trouble figuring out how my new hdd tested fine b/f the clone, bad sectors appear to be hardware flaws and shouldn't transfer over, but yet that chk dsk showed them in cloned hdd!? Doesn't the result of both quick and extended tests on new HDD, which was 'found no errors' mean no bad sectors present?

Also, noticed it 'replaced bad clusters,' which maybe are file content related, rather than hardware flaw? What is a cluster?

This post has been edited by Terri13th: 09 September 2011 - 12:16 PM

Re: chkdsk log showing "68 KB in bad sectors." after running chkdsk on the new hard drive (which is free of bad blocks/sectors)

Firstly, I want to reassure you that that all is well and normal, and there is nothing for you to be concerned about. A bit of googling has resolved the puzzle (chkdsk has carried over that information (ONLY) from a previous scan of the old failing hard drive) and suggested that there may be a couple of methods to fix what may remain as an "annoyance" to you, if you wish to pursue the matter.

I do not have any more time at the present moment to continue: Work outside is beckoning.

I will get back to you when I am able.

You asked: "What is a cluster?"
See the following two links for good explanations:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_cluster
  
• http://www.ntfs.com/hard-disk-basics.htm

In your case, the allocation unit or cluster size is 4096 bytes which amounts to 8 sectors. This size is set when the drive is formatted.

In reference to the following extract from your chkdsk log on the new hard drive:

Quote

One or more of the sectors containing that particular file were bad on the old hard drive. You cloned all the good sectors to your new hard drive. When chkdsk checked that particular file, it found that part of it was missing (the bit that was on the bad sector(s)) and so wrote the remaining good sectors to a new cluster or clusters. So, yes, it is "file content related" but is most likely the result of the bad sector(s) on the old hard drive.

The puzzle: Why does running chkdsk on the new hard drive show "68 KB in bad sectors." when there are actually no bad sectors?

The system keeps a record of what has been found on previous chkdsk scans, and (in some cases) when cloned to a new hard drive, this record is maintained intact. It bears no relevance to the situation after cloning to another hard drive.

The following link shows that cloning or imaging (backing up and restoring using an image file) using Acronis is likely to produce the same result:

Quote

Source: 1871: Partition Still Has Bad Sectors After it was Restored to a Different Location


Possible solutions (.... if you wish to go there?):

You may have noticed when perusing DjLizard's data recovery guide that the different versions of Windows also came out with different versions of chkdsk, and that Dj made the observation that the chkdsk version that comes with Vista/Windows 7 is better than that of Windows XP. One of the reasons for that comment, may have been that the Vista/Win7 version of chkdsk can be run with the /b switch, which would effectively fix your "68 KB in bad sectors." issue by scanning all sectors and not relying on the record of previous chkdsk scans.

Quote

Source: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc730714%28WS.10%29.aspx

It may be possible that booting from a Vista/Win7 installation disk and running chkdsk /b would resolve the issue on your Windows XP system, but I have not had the opportunity to test that theory. Likewise, connecting the hard drive to a system running Vista/Win7, and running chkdsk /b from there, may also resolve the issue, but again, I have not tested that.


Another possible solution to the problem of getting rid of that "68 KB in bad sectors." suggested on the Acronis site is to change the partition size when cloning or restoring an image. (I have no idea as to why or how that fixes the issue .... but apparently it does! There is more investigation to be done here?) We could certainly play around with this idea .... if you wish. What we could do would depend somewhat on what hardware you have available to use (spare hard drive, external USB hard drive ... possibly we could utilise the old "failing" hard drive, depending on how it came up after wiping and re-testing, but I doubt that it would come up usable at this stage).

Let me know your thoughts on whether you would be interested in pursuing the matter. Perhaps you would be content to leave sleeping dogs lie?

AustrAlien, on 09 September 2011 - 06:16 PM, said:

That's good enough for me, and I will just amend my notes on the clone, so that I remember what's going on in future ck dsks! Thanks for tracking down the answer to that puzzle! Yes, let's let sleeping dogs lie--don't want to press my luck after our success with beating a dead horse!

Speaking of chk dsk, I don't think I ever ran another chk dsk since those 2 on that first day clone came onboard. Wd there be any reason to run another chk dsk, and/or how often should chk dsk be run? (Ever since suspecting old drive was failing, I've held off on running chk dsk).

This post has been edited by Terri13th: 10 September 2011 - 01:01 PM

Terri13th, on 10 September 2011 - 12:21 PM, said:

That was a wise decision on your part.

Now that you know the hard drive is good (and you know how to check that the hard drive is good!), there is no reason for you to not run chkdsk whenever you suspect that there may be corruption of the file system. You should run chkdsk any time there has been an "untimely" shutdown of the system: Examples of an untimely shutdown would be after a power failure has turned off the computer, or the computer has been turned off using the power button, instead of shut down properly.

Running chkdsk is considered part of "routine maintenance" and as such, I would suggest that if it hasn't been run in 3 to 12 months .... then it would be time to run it again! Whether you choose to run chkdsk /f or chkdsk /r is up to you. As long as the hard drive does not have a problem, then it generally doesn't matter all that much. (For the most part I use chkdsk /f, but occasionally I like to run chkdsk /r for a more thorough check and cleanup .... in spite of DjLizard's recommendation to not use chkdsk /r at all.)