Thread: Corrupted drive
View Single Post
Old 11. Mar 2015, 11:55 PM   #21 (permalink)
Remah
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,741
Default

Burn-IT,
To clarify, I was not saying that CHKDSK (or even ScanDisk) is bad or that it "does more harm than good". I was pointing out two related issues that get conflated with the question sicknero asked. As I said, "I've not had any of the specific problems that I've read about many [times] over the years. But I have noticed the following issues." (Note that I added the missing word)
1. It is used when other products are better suited to the task at hand
2. Checking can accelerate the occurrence of problems


Quote:
Originally Posted by Burn-IT View Post
Running CHKDSK is never going to cause problems with any disk that didn't already have problems. That is a complete lie. CHKDSK will do no more head movements than any other tool.
I didn't say that it is "going to cause problems". You might have interpreted that I was specifying a causal relationship but I was saying that the problem was nacent, i.e. developing or ready to be discovered.

Also, my comparison isn't between check disk and other tools. It was between checking and not checking. I said "The act of comprehensively checking an entire drive can accelerate the occurrence and discovery of problems that would not have either occurred or been discovered until a later date. This becomes more obvious the more finite the life of the media."

I largely agree with your last sentence because many CHKDSK replacements perform more checks. But over the years there has been at least one tool that publicized its higher efficiency with less movement of the disk heads.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Burn-IT View Post
Checking a disk is NOT going to stress any components
I said "Specific tests also increase the stress on particular components so the failure of that component is more likely. For example, a random disk read test is more likely to induce a failure than a sequential read test which doesn't move the read heads as much."

In general, movement of mechanical components will increase the stress on them but it is common to have stress on components even when they are not moving.
An operating mechanical disk drive always has elements under stress. Every disk head movement places measurable stress on mechanical components. But even when the heads are not moving stress still exists where the heads have to be parked electromagnetically. Likewise there are stresses on the spinning disks and rotors even when they spin at a constant speed. These stresses increase when spinning up and spinning down the platters.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Burn-IT View Post
It is always going to be better to run CHKDSK if you suspect bad dismounts.
I didn't making a comparison of that sort. But if I had I would agree with you with the following provisos:
  • If you suspect that the drive has a mechanical problem then it is worth resolving that before attempting to repair logical problems.
  • If you suspect that the drive only has logical problems then it helps to know whether it is the content of the partition or the metadata supporting that partition. Check disk is useful for the former but makes no difference to the latter.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Burn-IT View Post
You will try telling us next that SCANDISK was a bad tool for FAT32 disks or that the old Norton Utilities were bad.
This is a straw man. I didn't say anything like that and certainly wouldn't say this.

By "old" Norton Utilities, do you mean the 80s Disk Doctor. I thought it was very useful at the time. I have liked and used Norton Utilities for a few decades even after Symantec bought out Peter Norton.
__________________
Better to light a candle ... than to curse the darkness.
Remah is offline   Reply With Quote