CHKDSK failed to solve file system errors

[Septem+]

Greetings,

I have a 2 yeay old Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 SATA 120 Gig hard drive,
model ID ST3120026AS, divided into 2 X 60 Gig partitions with XP Pro
installed.

2 days ago, I noticed a definite sluggishness on the system eg. a 145
meg .zip file took 5 minutes to decompress, the Start->Programs menu
was sluggish etc...

CHKDSK reported no errors, I had defragged a week ago, but am a bit
wary of defragging again yet...

So, I downloaded SeaTools and ran a full system check.

Seatools reports no hardware or memory errors, BUT reported file
system errors which it says it cannot help with but chkdsk can.

It also said the following:

"PARTITION 1. RESULT: Failed with critical errors.
- One or more errors were found in the index

PARTITION 2. RESULT: Failed with critical errors.
- One or more errors were found in the index
- One or more errors were found in the metadata file records"


I ran chkdsk in safe mode (the GUI version) and it, again, reported no
errors.

1.] Is this drive failing?

2.] What should be my next step?

Many thanks for your time in this matter.

[R. McCarty]

If Chkdsk doesn't recommend a /F session, then I would put more
credence in it's evaluation than Seatools. When my system was SCSI
based, I would run Seatools Enterprise and get those same type of
result summaries. However, if I checked the volumes with Chkdsk
it reported no issues. I would call Seagate Technical Support and
talk with them about the results.

"Septem+" > wrote in message
...
> Greetings,
>
> I have a 2 yeay old Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 SATA 120 Gig hard drive,
> model ID ST3120026AS, divided into 2 X 60 Gig partitions with XP Pro
> installed.
>
> 2 days ago, I noticed a definite sluggishness on the system eg. a 145
> meg .zip file took 5 minutes to decompress, the Start->Programs menu
> was sluggish etc...
>
> CHKDSK reported no errors, I had defragged a week ago, but am a bit
> wary of defragging again yet...
>
> So, I downloaded SeaTools and ran a full system check.
>
> Seatools reports no hardware or memory errors, BUT reported file
> system errors which it says it cannot help with but chkdsk can.
>
> It also said the following:
>
> "PARTITION 1. RESULT: Failed with critical errors.
> - One or more errors were found in the index
>
> PARTITION 2. RESULT: Failed with critical errors.
> - One or more errors were found in the index
> - One or more errors were found in the metadata file records"
>
>
> I ran chkdsk in safe mode (the GUI version) and it, again, reported no
> errors.
>
> 1.] Is this drive failing?
>
> 2.] What should be my next step?
>
> Many thanks for your time in this matter.
>

[Steve N.]

Septem+ wrote:

> Greetings,
>
> I have a 2 yeay old Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 SATA 120 Gig hard drive,
> model ID ST3120026AS, divided into 2 X 60 Gig partitions with XP Pro
> installed.
>
> 2 days ago, I noticed a definite sluggishness on the system eg. a 145
> meg .zip file took 5 minutes to decompress, the Start->Programs menu
> was sluggish etc...
>
> CHKDSK reported no errors, I had defragged a week ago, but am a bit
> wary of defragging again yet...
>
> So, I downloaded SeaTools and ran a full system check.
>
> Seatools reports no hardware or memory errors, BUT reported file
> system errors which it says it cannot help with but chkdsk can.
>
> It also said the following:
>
> "PARTITION 1. RESULT: Failed with critical errors.
> - One or more errors were found in the index
>
> PARTITION 2. RESULT: Failed with critical errors.
> - One or more errors were found in the index
> - One or more errors were found in the metadata file records"
>
>
> I ran chkdsk in safe mode (the GUI version) and it, again, reported no
> errors.
>
> 1.] Is this drive failing?
>
> 2.] What should be my next step?
>
> Many thanks for your time in this matter.
>

I've seen Seatools report FS errors when there were none according to
CHKDSK but I'd still run chkdsk /f from a command line anyway.

Steve

[Richard Urban]

Don't run chkdsk from the safe mode. Run chkdsk c: /f, say yes - then
reboot. Allow chkdsk to fix the errors. You will likely find that it did, in
fact, repair errors that were NOT specified by running chkdsk in "read only"
mode.

Running chkdsk in the read only mode does not perform a complete check, as
there are many files locked, and in use, that chkdsk skips over. Only by
running from a reboot (or the repair console) will chkdsk be able to check
the entire disk and file structure.

--
Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User

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

"Septem+" > wrote in message
...
> Greetings,
>
> I have a 2 yeay old Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 SATA 120 Gig hard drive,
> model ID ST3120026AS, divided into 2 X 60 Gig partitions with XP Pro
> installed.
>
> 2 days ago, I noticed a definite sluggishness on the system eg. a 145
> meg .zip file took 5 minutes to decompress, the Start->Programs menu
> was sluggish etc...
>
> CHKDSK reported no errors, I had defragged a week ago, but am a bit
> wary of defragging again yet...
>
> So, I downloaded SeaTools and ran a full system check.
>
> Seatools reports no hardware or memory errors, BUT reported file
> system errors which it says it cannot help with but chkdsk can.
>
> It also said the following:
>
> "PARTITION 1. RESULT: Failed with critical errors.
> - One or more errors were found in the index
>
> PARTITION 2. RESULT: Failed with critical errors.
> - One or more errors were found in the index
> - One or more errors were found in the metadata file records"
>
>
> I ran chkdsk in safe mode (the GUI version) and it, again, reported no
> errors.
>
> 1.] Is this drive failing?
>
> 2.] What should be my next step?
>
> Many thanks for your time in this matter.
>

[Gerry Cornell]

Does Disk Defragmenter run?

Try Ctrl+Alt+Delete to bring Task Manager and select the
Performance Tab. What is the Commit Charge? What was the Peak?


--


Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FCA

Using invalid email address

Stourport, Worcs, England
Enquire, plan and execute.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Please tell the newsgroup how any
suggested solution worked for you.

http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Septem+" > wrote in message
...
> Greetings,
>
> I have a 2 yeay old Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 SATA 120 Gig hard drive,
> model ID ST3120026AS, divided into 2 X 60 Gig partitions with XP Pro
> installed.
>
> 2 days ago, I noticed a definite sluggishness on the system eg. a 145
> meg .zip file took 5 minutes to decompress, the Start->Programs menu
> was sluggish etc...
>
> CHKDSK reported no errors, I had defragged a week ago, but am a bit
> wary of defragging again yet...
>
> So, I downloaded SeaTools and ran a full system check.
>
> Seatools reports no hardware or memory errors, BUT reported file
> system errors which it says it cannot help with but chkdsk can.
>
> It also said the following:
>
> "PARTITION 1. RESULT: Failed with critical errors.
> - One or more errors were found in the index
>
> PARTITION 2. RESULT: Failed with critical errors.
> - One or more errors were found in the index
> - One or more errors were found in the metadata file records"
>
>
> I ran chkdsk in safe mode (the GUI version) and it, again, reported no
> errors.
>
> 1.] Is this drive failing?
>
> 2.] What should be my next step?
>
> Many thanks for your time in this matter.
>

[+im]

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 20:43:24 +0100, "Gerry Cornell"
> wrote:

>Does Disk Defragmenter run?
>
>Try Ctrl+Alt+Delete to bring Task Manager and select the
>Performance Tab. What is the Commit Charge? What was the Peak?

Hi Gerry,

Commit charge: Total: 244104
Limit: 948104
Peak: 255336

Thank you for your time.

Regards

[scrubber]

You're getting those errors because you've got "Enable Command Queuing"
enabled on the HD controller in Device Manager. "Command Queuing" is supposed
to reorder, or prioritize commands so the the HD works more efficiently.
Unfortunately, the technology was developed after Win XP was launched and the
two don't talk to each other very well. That often results in a number of
Event ID 51's appearing in Event Viewer reporting: "An error was detected on
device \Device\Harddisk0\D during a paging operation". Best thing to do is in
Device Manager, locate the IDE/ATAPI controller for your HD, click the
"Primary Channel" tab and remove the checkmark from "Enable Command Queuing".


"Septem+" wrote:

> Greetings,
>
> I have a 2 yeay old Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 SATA 120 Gig hard drive,
> model ID ST3120026AS, divided into 2 X 60 Gig partitions with XP Pro
> installed.
>
> 2 days ago, I noticed a definite sluggishness on the system eg. a 145
> meg .zip file took 5 minutes to decompress, the Start->Programs menu
> was sluggish etc...
>
> CHKDSK reported no errors, I had defragged a week ago, but am a bit
> wary of defragging again yet...
>
> So, I downloaded SeaTools and ran a full system check.
>
> Seatools reports no hardware or memory errors, BUT reported file
> system errors which it says it cannot help with but chkdsk can.
>
> It also said the following:
>
> "PARTITION 1. RESULT: Failed with critical errors.
> - One or more errors were found in the index
>
> PARTITION 2. RESULT: Failed with critical errors.
> - One or more errors were found in the index
> - One or more errors were found in the metadata file records"
>
>
> I ran chkdsk in safe mode (the GUI version) and it, again, reported no
> errors.
>
> 1.] Is this drive failing?
>
> 2.] What should be my next step?
>
> Many thanks for your time in this matter.
>
>

[cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)]

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 15:13:20 -0400, "Richard Urban"

>Running chkdsk in the read only mode does not perform a complete check, as
>there are many files locked, and in use, that chkdsk skips over. Only by
>running from a reboot (or the repair console) will chkdsk be able to check
>the entire disk and file structure.

So you can't trust ChkDsk results unless you let it irreversibly fix
(without prompting you first) anything it finds.

That's a pretty dangerous strategy IMO - but that's not the reason I'd
recommend using HD Tune from www.hdtune.com instead.

File system errors might slow down the system, but are more likely to
cause system errors. What is more likely to slow the system, are
surface defects that require the system to retry disk operations;
while in these low-level retry loops, the mouse pointer will stick,
key strokes will be ignored, etc.

Both the HD and NTFS code will try to hide disk defects by "fixing"
them on the fly. IOW, if ot takes a far larger number or retries to
read disk, and this is noticed, then that data is relocated elsewhere.

If the HD's firmware does this, it should be visible as a change in
the S.M.A.R.T. counters, but it won't be visible in the bad cluster
count reported by ChkDsk.

If the NTFS code does this, it should be visible as an increase in the
bad cluster count (where even one bad cluster is bad news) but won't
be seen in S.M.A.R.T. counters.

HD Tune doesn't have any awareness of file system errors, as ChkDsk
does. It's only concerned with the physical health of the HD itself,
and it shows you three things in that regard; drive temperature,
details of S.M.A.R.T. history (unlike SeaTools' "not dead yet") and a
surface test (do the "slow" test and watch temperature).



>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Failure is not an option.
It's built into the software
>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

[Richard Urban]

If HDTune is as good as first looks indicate, it will be a fine addition to
Windows XP. I really don't like the fact that chkdsk just fixes thing
without giving a user a preview of what it has detected and an option on
what to do.

--
Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" > wrote in
message ...
> On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 15:13:20 -0400, "Richard Urban"
>
>>Running chkdsk in the read only mode does not perform a complete check, as
>>there are many files locked, and in use, that chkdsk skips over. Only by
>>running from a reboot (or the repair console) will chkdsk be able to check
>>the entire disk and file structure.
>
> So you can't trust ChkDsk results unless you let it irreversibly fix
> (without prompting you first) anything it finds.
>
> That's a pretty dangerous strategy IMO - but that's not the reason I'd
> recommend using HD Tune from www.hdtune.com instead.
>
> File system errors might slow down the system, but are more likely to
> cause system errors. What is more likely to slow the system, are
> surface defects that require the system to retry disk operations;
> while in these low-level retry loops, the mouse pointer will stick,
> key strokes will be ignored, etc.
>
> Both the HD and NTFS code will try to hide disk defects by "fixing"
> them on the fly. IOW, if ot takes a far larger number or retries to
> read disk, and this is noticed, then that data is relocated elsewhere.
>
> If the HD's firmware does this, it should be visible as a change in
> the S.M.A.R.T. counters, but it won't be visible in the bad cluster
> count reported by ChkDsk.
>
> If the NTFS code does this, it should be visible as an increase in the
> bad cluster count (where even one bad cluster is bad news) but won't
> be seen in S.M.A.R.T. counters.
>
> HD Tune doesn't have any awareness of file system errors, as ChkDsk
> does. It's only concerned with the physical health of the HD itself,
> and it shows you three things in that regard; drive temperature,
> details of S.M.A.R.T. history (unlike SeaTools' "not dead yet") and a
> surface test (do the "slow" test and watch temperature).
>
>
>
>>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
> Failure is not an option.
> It's built into the software
>>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

[Richard Urban]

Realizing now that HDTune does not check for logical errors I am a bit
unenthused about it. Logical errors are the most prevalent type of hard
drive errors.

--
Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

"Richard Urban" > wrote in message
...
> If HDTune is as good as first looks indicate, it will be a fine addition
> to Windows XP. I really don't like the fact that chkdsk just fixes thing
> without giving a user a preview of what it has detected and an option on
> what to do.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Richard Urban
> Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
>
> Quote from George Ankner:
> If you knew as much as you think you know,
> You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
>
> "cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" > wrote in
> message ...
>> On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 15:13:20 -0400, "Richard Urban"
>>
>>>Running chkdsk in the read only mode does not perform a complete check,
>>>as
>>>there are many files locked, and in use, that chkdsk skips over. Only by
>>>running from a reboot (or the repair console) will chkdsk be able to
>>>check
>>>the entire disk and file structure.
>>
>> So you can't trust ChkDsk results unless you let it irreversibly fix
>> (without prompting you first) anything it finds.
>>
>> That's a pretty dangerous strategy IMO - but that's not the reason I'd
>> recommend using HD Tune from www.hdtune.com instead.
>>
>> File system errors might slow down the system, but are more likely to
>> cause system errors. What is more likely to slow the system, are
>> surface defects that require the system to retry disk operations;
>> while in these low-level retry loops, the mouse pointer will stick,
>> key strokes will be ignored, etc.
>>
>> Both the HD and NTFS code will try to hide disk defects by "fixing"
>> them on the fly. IOW, if ot takes a far larger number or retries to
>> read disk, and this is noticed, then that data is relocated elsewhere.
>>
>> If the HD's firmware does this, it should be visible as a change in
>> the S.M.A.R.T. counters, but it won't be visible in the bad cluster
>> count reported by ChkDsk.
>>
>> If the NTFS code does this, it should be visible as an increase in the
>> bad cluster count (where even one bad cluster is bad news) but won't
>> be seen in S.M.A.R.T. counters.
>>
>> HD Tune doesn't have any awareness of file system errors, as ChkDsk
>> does. It's only concerned with the physical health of the HD itself,
>> and it shows you three things in that regard; drive temperature,
>> details of S.M.A.R.T. history (unlike SeaTools' "not dead yet") and a
>> surface test (do the "slow" test and watch temperature).
>>
>>
>>
>>>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
>> Failure is not an option.
>> It's built into the software
>>>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
>
>