Are lost clusters the same as bad clusters.......

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

I often have norton report that I have lost clusters which I know are
areas of space reported to windows as in use but that actually aren't.
Are these 'bad' clusters or is that something different. Is is best to
allow these to be repaired and deleted or saved.The thread on bad
clusters made me think about this. I am one of those inpatience people
who reaches for the off button when the pc freezes so I expect it is of
my own doing.


--
PSYCHOPIXIE

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

No, Lost Clusters aren't the same as bad clusters. Lost Clusters are
files with a head but no tail, or a tail with no head, or a middle with
no head and no tail....to put it simply, somewhere along the line the
integrity of the file got broken and the clusters that make it up are no
longer associated with each other properly. Lost Clusters are those
which aren't marked as deleted or empty, but which don't recognizably
belong to a file. You typically get Lost Clusters when forced to reset
or when Cross-linked files occur--parts of two files get incorrectly
linked together as one file, with the other parts that are left over
becoming Lost Clusters.

Bad clusters are areas that are physically corrupted--can't be read in
part or in whole.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

"PSYCHOPIXIE" <PSYCHOPIXIE.1klbo0@news.win98banter.com> wrote in message
newsSYCHOPIXIE.1klbo0@news.win98banter.com...
>
> I often have norton report that I have lost clusters which I know are
> areas of space reported to windows as in use but that actually aren't.
> Are these 'bad' clusters or is that something different. Is is best to
> allow these to be repaired and deleted or saved.The thread on bad
> clusters made me think about this. I am one of those inpatience
people
> who reaches for the off button when the pc freezes so I expect it is
of
> my own doing.
>
>
> --
> PSYCHOPIXIE

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

> No, Lost Clusters aren't the same as bad clusters. Lost Clusters are
> files with a head but no tail, or a tail with no head, or a middle with
> no head and no tail....to put it simply, somewhere along the line the
> integrity of the file got broken and the clusters that make it up are no
> longer associated with each other properly. Lost Clusters are those
> which aren't marked as deleted or empty, but which don't recognizably
> belong to a file. You typically get Lost Clusters when forced to reset
> or when Cross-linked files occur--parts of two files get incorrectly
> linked together as one file, with the other parts that are left over
> becoming Lost Clusters.
>
> Bad clusters are areas that are physically corrupted--can't be read in
> part or in whole.

WOE.
I am going to be a Dan for a second on your above reply gary.
That was the most Terse and comprehensive explanation I
have ever read.
Each line was an edification.

**accolades**

regards Jane

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

"jane" <jane@internet.com> wrote in message
news:%236kH0iPFFHA.4004@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
|
| > No, Lost Clusters aren't the same as bad clusters. Lost Clusters are
| > files with a head but no tail, or a tail with no head, or a middle
with
| > no head and no tail....to put it simply, somewhere along the line
the
| > integrity of the file got broken and the clusters that make it up
are no
| > longer associated with each other properly. Lost Clusters are those
| > which aren't marked as deleted or empty, but which don't
recognizably
| > belong to a file. You typically get Lost Clusters when forced to
reset
| > or when Cross-linked files occur--parts of two files get incorrectly
| > linked together as one file, with the other parts that are left over
| > becoming Lost Clusters.
| >
| > Bad clusters are areas that are physically corrupted--can't be read
in
| > part or in whole.
|
| WOE.
| I am going to be a Dan for a second on your above reply gary.
| That was the most Terse and comprehensive explanation I
| have ever read.
| Each line was an edification.
|
| **accolades**
|
| regards Jane

I'd rather be "a head but no tail" than the other choices he has
offered!

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net