How to fix Disk I/O and bad sector errors...Help pls?

[Mystical]

I recently had to reinstall my OS using an image file created by drive
image due to my primary disk reporting a SMART error.

I promoted my secondary disk to primary, did a quick NTFS format and
installed the image. All seemed ok until i created new image, which
reported errors at LBA 10,704,656 Data error (cyclic redundency check)

I got around this by instructind drive image to ignore bad sectors.
However Easy recovery reports I/O errors at Sectors 10705466, 10706246
and 10706251.

I have run chkdsk /f but it did not find any problems. Easy recovery
also crashes when carrying out a partition test.

Can anyone advise on a way (a free program maybe) of repairing Disk I/O
errors and correcting the bad sectors, or do i have to do a complete
full reformat and start again?

Regards
Martin

 

[Ralph Mowery]

I promoted my secondary disk to primary, did a quick NTFS format and

installed the image. All seemed ok until i created new image, which
reported errors at LBA 10,704,656 Data error (cyclic redundency check)

I got around this by instructind drive image to ignore bad sectors.
However Easy recovery reports I/O errors at Sectors 10705466, 10706246
and 10706251.

I have run chkdsk /f but it did not find any problems. Easy recovery
also crashes when carrying out a partition test.

Can anyone advise on a way (a free program maybe) of repairing Disk I/O
errors and correcting the bad sectors, or do i have to do a complete
full reformat and start again?

Looks like you are going to have to buy a new drive. When a drive starts
reporting bad sectors it is usually all over.

 

[DaveW]

Bad sectors are portions of the disk that have FAILED. You cannot fix them;
you buy a new harddrive.

 

[kony]

I recently had to reinstall my OS using an image file created by drive
image due to my primary disk reporting a SMART error.

I promoted my secondary disk to primary, did a quick NTFS format and
installed the image. All seemed ok until i created new image, which
reported errors at LBA 10,704,656 Data error (cyclic redundency check)

I got around this by instructind drive image to ignore bad sectors.
However Easy recovery reports I/O errors at Sectors 10705466, 10706246
and 10706251.

I have run chkdsk /f but it did not find any problems. Easy recovery
also crashes when carrying out a partition test.

Can anyone advise on a way (a free program maybe) of repairing Disk I/O
errors and correcting the bad sectors, or do i have to do a complete
full reformat and start again?

Regards
Martin

You might check your power supply voltages and question it's
health if it's a generic.

You shouldn't need to format at all, not that time you mentioned
nor again, that is lost and recreated as per the image.

 

[Michael Culley]

Can anyone advise on a way (a free program maybe) of repairing Disk I/O
errors and correcting the bad sectors, or do i have to do a complete
full reformat and start again?

For some reason this reminds me of the guy who designed the titanic asking when the ship will be underway. The reply, of course, was
that it was going to sink.

 

[Wheaty]

Mystical enlightened us all with the following:

I recently had to reinstall my OS using an image file created by drive
image due to my primary disk reporting a SMART error.

I promoted my secondary disk to primary, did a quick NTFS format and
installed the image. All seemed ok until i created new image, which
reported errors at LBA 10,704,656 Data error (cyclic redundency check)

I got around this by instructind drive image to ignore bad sectors.
However Easy recovery reports I/O errors at Sectors 10705466, 10706246
and 10706251.

I have run chkdsk /f but it did not find any problems. Easy recovery
also crashes when carrying out a partition test.

Can anyone advise on a way (a free program maybe) of repairing Disk I/O
errors and correcting the bad sectors, or do i have to do a complete
full reformat and start again?

Regards
Martin

Here's a theory, correct me if I'm wrong.
If you created the image from the original HD with the SMART failure, then
cloned it to your secondary drive, presumably good, then the bad sectors
being reported may be false positives. The image itself contains the map
for the bad sectors, as it in all probablity was a forensic style image
which maps out EVERY little bit of the old file system, not just the old
OS. I would run an OS independant diagnostic on it (usually available from
the manufacturer) and see what it reports. If it reports no errors, install
a fresh copy of the OS and see what happens.
Just a theory.

Wheaty

 

[Mystical]

Mystical enlightened us all with the following:


Here's a theory, correct me if I'm wrong.
If you created the image from the original HD with the SMART failure, then
cloned it to your secondary drive, presumably good, then the bad sectors
being reported may be false positives. The image itself contains the map
for the bad sectors, as it in all probablity was a forensic style image
which maps out EVERY little bit of the old file system, not just the old
OS. I would run an OS independant diagnostic on it (usually available from
the manufacturer) and see what it reports. If it reports no errors, install
a fresh copy of the OS and see what happens.
Just a theory.

Wheaty

Thanks, this is an interesting theory which i had thought of, ie cloning
a OS partition might clone the bad sectors onto another drive.
However i used Maxtor power max and it reported errors...that it claimed
to have fixed. Question....Im i right in saying that it just marks the
sectors as bad and therfore ignored for use by the OS? therfore the
Drive is still good to use?

Im gonna run with this drive as it is only 2 years old, if i loose it
then no big deal as i wanna get some SATA drives next.....so the sooner
te drive fails the better
Regards
Martin

 

[kony]

Thanks, this is an interesting theory which i had thought of, ie cloning
a OS partition might clone the bad sectors onto another drive.
However i used Maxtor power max and it reported errors...that it claimed
to have fixed. Question....Im i right in saying that it just marks the
sectors as bad and therfore ignored for use by the OS? therfore the
Drive is still good to use?

Im gonna run with this drive as it is only 2 years old, if i loose it
then no big deal as i wanna get some SATA drives next.....so the sooner
te drive fails the better

NO, it does not clone bad sectors onto another drive. The
"theory" is not how DI works, it would report errors initially.

Your problem is outside of DI, probably cables, heat, or power
related... to the extent that now any drives in the system
(perhaps even those added as replacements) may be

 

[Michael Culley]

to have fixed. Question....Im i right in saying that it just marks the
sectors as bad and therfore ignored for use by the OS? therfore the
Drive is still good to use?

Maybe, maybe not. Bad sectors are a sign the drive is failing and more bad sectors are likely. The drive might run for years or fail
tommorrow so should not be relied apon.

 

[Wheaty]

kony enlightened us all with the following:

NO, it does not clone bad sectors onto another drive. The
"theory" is not how DI works, it would report errors initially.

It was a theory based on the facts of the situation. I am not 100% sure as
I don't use DI (I use different utilities). It seemed a bit strange to be
reporting bad sectors on two hard drives at the same time. As for utilities
like DI reporting bad sectors initially, well, that's not true either. I
have had many partition and drive clones go without reporting bad sectors
using DI, Ghost, and many other cloning utilities. Nothing is perfect.

 

[kony]

kony enlightened us all with the following:


It was a theory based on the facts of the situation.

Not really. Nothing wrong with theories but it was based upon a
complete guess of how DI works, without reading any DI
literature. Anything that tries to read from a bad sectore
towards the end of making a backup is going to let you know it
couldn't be read. If it could be read but data was corrupt, you
would not have a bad sector on the destination.

I am not 100% sure as
I don't use DI (I use different utilities).

AFAIK, none of them will recreate a bad sector. If you know of
any please share them, as we should all certainly avoid them.

It seemed a bit strange to be
reporting bad sectors on two hard drives at the same time.

yes it does

As for utilities
like DI reporting bad sectors initially, well, that's not true either.

yes it is. The utility attempts to read... sector is either
read, then it is irrelevant if it went bad later, or sector is
not read and it is a read error that is reported.

I
have had many partition and drive clones go without reporting bad sectors
using DI, Ghost, and many other cloning utilities. Nothing is perfect.

Define exact circumstances, not "go". The DI or ghost imaging
will not leave you wondering if it couldn't read the data on the
drive. Whether it WROTE that data to a viable destination is
another matter, but there is a setting in the program that can
check this, so again it doesn't have to be questionable, you know
for certain one way or the other from the imaging program itself
unless you choose to not check that image being made or restored.
Again, a bad sector is not recreated by the imaging program.

I"m getting the feeling you had systems with memory errors...
maybe not, insufficient data.

 

[Wheaty]

kony enlightened us all with the following:

*wheaty receives sound thrashing honorably"

I concede.... a bit more research on my part was needed.