Scan Disk

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gaga6
  • Start date Start date
G

Gaga6

BlankWhile reading some of the posts here, I get the idea that I should perform a scandisk regularly. I haven't been doing that. Should I, and how often? I'm a bit confused about this task.

Helen
 
I can only imagine the discussion this will generate...

So, I'll preface my comments by stating explicitly that this is just my
opinion...

You don't need to run Scandisk regularly. Scandisk is a utility that checks
for errors on your hard drive. It can check for cross-linked files,
orphaned file headers, etc. When it encounters an error, it will attempt to
correct it.

For the most part, these types of errors are very rare and, when
encountered, cause a system failure or crash.
BlankWhile reading some of the posts here, I get the idea that I should
perform a scandisk regularly. I haven't been doing that. Should I, and how
often? I'm a bit confused about this task.

Helen
 
Dooh!...stupid touchpad...

As I was saying, if your system crashes or you are experiencing errors or
other types of problems, then you should run scandisk to check for disk
errors. Otherwise, there isn't really an overriding reason to go out of
your way to run it regularly.

On the other hand, it's not hard to run, doesn't take long and can be
scheduled to run after hours. So, there really isn't any reason NOT to run
it, either.

BlankWhile reading some of the posts here, I get the idea that I should
perform a scandisk regularly. I haven't been doing that. Should I, and how
often? I'm a bit confused about this task.

Helen
 
May I ask what 'scandisk' you are referring to?
Do you mean 'chkdsk', which is accessible from
the 'DOS'-prompt (cmd) on XP?
Bill Lurie
 
BlankChkdsk is a diagnostic and repair tool. Do not run it like you would
an antivirus or antispyware program. The system will schedule it if the
system detects a problem with a disk or you may schedule it if you have
problems with a disk. Otherwise there is no need at all to run it.

--
Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
(Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
While reading some of the posts here, I get the idea that I should perform a
scandisk regularly. I haven't been doing that. Should I, and how often?
I'm a bit confused about this task.

Helen
 
Correction: I have no idea where 'Blank' at the beginning came from, but
ignore it.
 
Colin, chkdsk, full 5-section version, finds no problem
with the master partition on one of my hard drives,
but it refuses to boot. So I ran Seagate's SeaTools
(it is a Seagate ATA 80GB) and it says it failed in
the File Systems or File Structures test area. Can I
go any further, or is just biting the bullet and deep-
sixing the drive the smartest approach?

Bill Lurie
 
I am not a Seagate user so don't know for sure. I think references to the
file structure (Windows) is very different from references to sectors (the
drive), so running 'chkdsk /f' would be my next move, unless you have
already run it with the /f switch (fix). If the Seagate tool is specific
and says to replace the drive, then of course do so. If you have other
reasons to believe the drive is defective, then replace it. Otherwise I
would try to repair the file system or have the drive evaluated
professionally. Be sure you back up the data.


[MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
(Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
 
Let me add that I hate knee-jerk answers to replace a component and so I am
being very cautious here about saying to replace it. Also, I don't know
anything about the rest of your computer. I assume it is not brand new
because of the size of the drive.

--
Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
(Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
Colin Barnhorst said:
I am not a Seagate user so don't know for sure. I think references to the
file structure (Windows) is very different from references to sectors (the
drive), so running 'chkdsk /f' would be my next move, unless you have
already run it with the /f switch (fix). If the Seagate tool is specific
and says to replace the drive, then of course do so. If you have other
reasons to believe the drive is defective, then replace it. Otherwise I
would try to repair the file system or have the drive evaluated
professionally. Be sure you back up the data.


[MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
(Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
Colin, chkdsk, full 5-section version, finds no problem
with the master partition on one of my hard drives,
but it refuses to boot. So I ran Seagate's SeaTools
(it is a Seagate ATA 80GB) and it says it failed in
the File Systems or File Structures test area. Can I
go any further, or is just biting the bullet and deep-
sixing the drive the smartest approach?

Bill Lurie
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Following extract from Google search-

Scandisk help and information COMPUTER SOFTWARE Information about Microsoft
Scandisk. ... Scandisk is a Microsoft utility that was purchased originally
from Norton which is now Symantec. ...

PS I can't find Scandisk on my XPHome system - perhaps it's re-named
CHKDSK ? SCANDISK was certainly an MSDOS utility doing much the same as
chkdsk does now.

I don't agree with NOT running CHKDSK until there's a problem, because one
IMPORTANT function it has is to check for FAILING or BAD sectors, and
transfer data to safe sectors. For this reason, I run it on an occasional
basis, about once a month. Personal choice, better safe than sorry! Or am I
wrong in this belief (it checks for failing sectors?)

Sincerely, Len
 
My guess is, since chkdsk has already found bad sectors, the finding of the
Seagate utility is related. While the Seagate utility didn't warn of
imminent failure I'd still be concerned with a finding of bad sectors.

One other thing, is SMART turned on. The Seagate utility should have
determined this, assuming this drive is compatible with that feature.
Sometimes, when turned on, SMART will return a drive failure warning even
when the diagnostics do not but the feature does need to be turned on. If
unsure, check the Seagate site with regard to your model drive to see if it
is SMART compatible, it should also give instructions for turning this
feature on. It usually is not turned on by default.
 
Just FYI, Michael, the Seagate utility generates a full report.
In the report, it notes that it enables SMART, SMART Check: Passed,
and after further testing, SMART disabled.

Also, you'll note that the HELP description for chkdsk (/f and /r)
could be somewhat clearer. It says that /r 'implies' /f .......
I like to think that /r might mean repair. Or that /f might mean
fix. In any case, /f is a short test, 'r' is much more comprehensive,
and I always do 'r'. The first 3 of its scans seem to be just what
/f does anyway.

If I were an optimist, I'd assume that the 220K in 'bad sectors'
will not increase, that they have been made inoperative, and
that I can monitor this regularly. But I'm not....Elmer's Law
tells me, as Mark Twain once wrote "Things will go along like
that for a while......and then they'll get worse". I'm going
to take that drive out of service and keep my eye out for a
suitable replacement.

Again, it's an 80GB, which was very copiuos 2.5 years ago when the
machine arrived new. I don't want a 160 or a 250 or who knows
how big the next 'upgrade' will be. It's already 5 times as big
as I need it, and to me bigger means it has more sectors to go bad,
and it takes that much longer to scan anything.
Thanks for chatting.......
 
My mistake... It is chkdsk. I'm reading all the posts and decided which is
the right way to go with it.

Thanks...
Helen

Colin Barnhorst said:
It is chkdsk on XP.

--
Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
(Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
Yabbadoo said:
Following extract from Google search-

Scandisk help and information COMPUTER SOFTWARE Information about
Microsoft
Scandisk. ... Scandisk is a Microsoft utility that was purchased
originally
from Norton which is now Symantec. ...

PS I can't find Scandisk on my XPHome system - perhaps it's re-named
CHKDSK ? SCANDISK was certainly an MSDOS utility doing much the same as
chkdsk does now.

I don't agree with NOT running CHKDSK until there's a problem, because one
IMPORTANT function it has is to check for FAILING or BAD sectors, and
transfer data to safe sectors. For this reason, I run it on an occasional
basis, about once a month. Personal choice, better safe than sorry! Or am
I wrong in this belief (it checks for failing sectors?)

Sincerely, Len
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top