chkdsk /r and surface scan

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Anthony Ewell wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> Is there an XP equivalent to Win 9x's scandisk
> "Thorough" scan (surface scan)?
>
> --Tony


Hi All,

I posted the above in a different posting. I got
a lot of hits but no one directly answered the
question. I was told to look up the options
on chkdsk and to use the /r option.

/R Locates bad sectors and recovers readable
information (implies /F).

Question: is "chkdsk /r" a surface scan? And, is
it equivalent to 9x's scandisk "Thorough" scan?

It really sounds to me like they are not the same
thing; sounds like it is looking for errors in
active data, not both data and empty space.
For one thing, scandisk's "Thorough"? takes
10 time as long.

Please enlighten me.

Many thanks,
--Tony
6 answers Last reply
More about chkdsk surface scan
  1. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    Anthony Ewell wrote:
    > Anthony Ewell wrote:
    >
    > > Hi All,
    > >
    > > Is there an XP equivalent to Win 9x's scandisk
    > > "Thorough" scan (surface scan)?
    > >
    > > --Tony
    >
    >
    >
    > Hi All,
    >
    > I posted the above in a different posting. I got
    > a lot of hits but no one directly answered the
    > question. I was told to look up the options
    > on chkdsk and to use the /r option.
    >
    > /R Locates bad sectors and recovers readable
    > information (implies /F).
    >
    > Question: is "chkdsk /r" a surface scan? And, is
    > it equivalent to 9x's scandisk "Thorough" scan?
    >
    > It really sounds to me like they are not the same
    > thing; sounds like it is looking for errors in
    > active data, not both data and empty space.
    > For one thing, scandisk's "Thorough"? takes
    > 10 time as long.
    >
    > Please enlighten me.
    >
    > Many thanks,
    > --Tony

    Scandisk isn't available in XP, it's only chkdsk so there is no point in
    wondering about the differences since you can't run it anyway. That
    said chkdsk /r checks the file structure and then reads every sector on
    the hard drive, used and unused, so yes in that respect it is the
    equivalent of scandisk.

    --
    Rock
    MS MVP Windows - Shell/User
  2. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    Rock wrote:
    > Anthony Ewell wrote:
    >
    >> Anthony Ewell wrote:
    >>
    >> > Hi All,
    >> >
    >> > Is there an XP equivalent to Win 9x's scandisk
    >> > "Thorough" scan (surface scan)?
    >> >
    >> > --Tony
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Hi All,
    >>
    >> I posted the above in a different posting. I got
    >> a lot of hits but no one directly answered the
    >> question. I was told to look up the options
    >> on chkdsk and to use the /r option.
    >>
    >> /R Locates bad sectors and recovers readable
    >> information (implies /F).
    >>
    >> Question: is "chkdsk /r" a surface scan? And, is
    >> it equivalent to 9x's scandisk "Thorough" scan?
    >>
    >> It really sounds to me like they are not the same
    >> thing; sounds like it is looking for errors in
    >> active data, not both data and empty space.
    >> For one thing, scandisk's "Thorough"? takes
    >> 10 time as long.
    >>
    >> Please enlighten me.
    >>
    >> Many thanks,
    >> --Tony
    >
    >
    > Scandisk isn't available in XP, it's only chkdsk so there is no point in
    > wondering about the differences since you can't run it anyway. That
    > said chkdsk /r checks the file structure and then reads every sector on
    > the hard drive, used and unused, so yes in that respect it is the
    > equivalent of scandisk.
    >

    Hi Rock,

    Thank you!

    Follow up question: are bad tracks placed in a bad track table,
    so that they will never again be used?

    --Tony
  3. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    Disks don't have tracks - they have sectors, the same thing that was checked
    with scandisk in Win98.

    They are marked as bad, same as in scandisk.

    --
    Regards,

    Richard Urban

    If you knew as much as you think you know,
    You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!


    "Anthony Ewell" <aewell@gbis.com> wrote in message
    news:d923i4$iip$3@domitilla.aioe.org...
    > Rock wrote:
    >> Anthony Ewell wrote:
    >>
    >>> Anthony Ewell wrote:
    >>>
    >>> > Hi All,
    >>> >
    >>> > Is there an XP equivalent to Win 9x's scandisk
    >>> > "Thorough" scan (surface scan)?
    >>> >
    >>> > --Tony
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Hi All,
    >>>
    >>> I posted the above in a different posting. I got
    >>> a lot of hits but no one directly answered the
    >>> question. I was told to look up the options
    >>> on chkdsk and to use the /r option.
    >>>
    >>> /R Locates bad sectors and recovers readable
    >>> information (implies /F).
    >>>
    >>> Question: is "chkdsk /r" a surface scan? And, is
    >>> it equivalent to 9x's scandisk "Thorough" scan?
    >>>
    >>> It really sounds to me like they are not the same
    >>> thing; sounds like it is looking for errors in
    >>> active data, not both data and empty space.
    >>> For one thing, scandisk's "Thorough"? takes
    >>> 10 time as long.
    >>>
    >>> Please enlighten me.
    >>>
    >>> Many thanks,
    >>> --Tony
    >>
    >>
    >> Scandisk isn't available in XP, it's only chkdsk so there is no point in
    >> wondering about the differences since you can't run it anyway. That said
    >> chkdsk /r checks the file structure and then reads every sector on the
    >> hard drive, used and unused, so yes in that respect it is the equivalent
    >> of scandisk.
    >>
    >
    > Hi Rock,
    >
    > Thank you!
    >
    > Follow up question: are bad tracks placed in a bad track table,
    > so that they will never again be used?
    >
    > --Tony
  4. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 14:09:41 -0700, Rock <rock@mail.nospam.net> wrote:

    >Scandisk isn't available in XP, it's only chkdsk so there is no point in
    >wondering about the differences since you can't run it anyway.

    If you avoid NTFS and are under 137G, you can use a Win9x DOS mode
    boot and DOS mode Scandisk. In fact, this is a reason to prefer FATxx
    to NTFS, because as you say, NTFS has no interactive file system
    repair tools (i.e. where it prompts you before "fixing" things, so you
    can back out and use manual tools instead)

    >chkdsk /r checks the file structure and then reads every sector on
    >the hard drive, used and unused, so yes in that respect it is the
    >equivalent of scandisk.

    It may be faster if it's able to use faster UDMA modes from within
    Windows than DOS mode Scandisk can do within DOS mode, or if it uses
    fewer retries on errors than Scandisk might do.

    However, it doesn't show you a map of the volume, or a fine-grained
    cluster counter that can alert you to pauses that signify sick sectors
    that are accepted as "OK" because they still work, even after a large
    number of retry attempts. I still like Scandisk surface for that.


    >------------------------ ---- --- -- - - - -
    Forget http://cquirke.blogspot.com and check out a
    better one at http://topicdrift.blogspot.com instead!
    >------------------------ ---- --- -- - - - -
  5. > Disks don't have tracks - they have sectors, ...

    Disks have both tracks and sectors.
    A track is one platter surface of a cylinder.
    A track is subdivided into sectors.
  6. So does chdsk /r just do a read surface scan or does it verify that the sector is good by writing data (refreshing) to each sector as well?
    I'm guessing it just does a read. My question is because I've heard to need a write to the pending bad sectors in order for the drive's controller to deal with it (recover the data, mark as bad at the controller level)
Ask a new question

Read More

Chkdsk Surface Windows XP