Computers & Electronics

Can you explain these errors?

  • Last Updated:
  • Feb 8th, 2018 11:15 am
Tags:
None
SCORE
Reply to ThreadReply
Feb 6th, 2018 9:40 am
Quentin5 [OP]
Deal Expert
User avatar
Feb 8, 2014
20552 posts
7689 upvotes
Socially Distanced

Feb 6th, 2018 9:40 am

Can you explain these errors?

About once a year i do physical testing on both my hard drives to check for bad sectors. My 7 year old drive is fine but my 4 year old drive had several bad sectors and other errors that i do not understand.
PS E:\> chkdsk /r
The type of the file system is NTFS.
Cannot lock current drive.

Chkdsk cannot run because the volume is in use by another
process. Chkdsk may run if this volume is dismounted first.
ALL OPENED HANDLES TO THIS VOLUME WOULD THEN BE INVALID.
Would you like to force a dismount on this volume? (Y/N) y
Volume dismounted. All opened handles to this volume are now invalid.
Volume label is My Book.

Stage 1: Examining basic file system structure ...
230656 file records processed.
File verification completed.
0 large file records processed.
0 bad file records processed.

Stage 2: Examining file name linkage ...
296308 index entries processed.
Index verification completed.
0 unindexed files scanned.
0 unindexed files recovered.

Stage 3: Examining security descriptors ...
Security descriptor verification completed.
32827 data files processed.
CHKDSK is verifying Usn Journal...
501834696 USN bytes processed.
Usn Journal verification completed.

Stage 4: Looking for bad clusters in user file data ...
Windows replaced bad clusters in file 47695
of name \xx\xx.xx
Windows replaced bad clusters in file 47697
of name \xx\xx.xx
Windows replaced bad clusters in file 57592
of name \xx\xx.xx
Windows replaced bad clusters in file 57911
of name \xx\xx.xx
Windows replaced bad clusters in file 58098
of name \xx\xx.xx
Windows replaced bad clusters in file 222644
of name \xx\xx.xx
Windows replaced bad clusters in file 223175
of name \xx\xx.xx
230640 files processed.
File data verification completed.

Stage 5: Looking for bad, free clusters ...
123921962 free clusters processed.
Free space verification is complete.
Adding 31 bad clusters to the Bad Clusters File.
CHKDSK discovered free space marked as allocated in the
master file table (MFT) bitmap.
CHKDSK discovered free space marked as allocated in the volume bitmap.

Windows has made corrections to the file system.
No further action is required.

2861554 MB total disk space.
2376355 MB in 181745 files.
78336 KB in 32828 indexes.
124 KB in bad sectors.
1078072 KB in use by the system.
65536 KB occupied by the log file.
495687852 KB available on disk.

4096 bytes in each allocation unit.
732558079 total allocation units on disk.
123921963 allocation units available on disk.
PS E:\> File verification completed.
File : The term 'File' is not recognized as the name of a cmdlet, function, script file, or operable program. Check
the spelling of the name, or if a path was included, verify that the path is correct and try again.
At line:1 char:1
+ File verification completed.
+ ~~~~
+ CategoryInfo : ObjectNotFound: (File:String) [], CommandNotFoundException
+ FullyQualifiedErrorId : CommandNotFoundException

PS E:\> 0 large file records processed.
At line:1 char:5
+ 0 large file records processed.
+ ~~~~~
Unexpected token 'large' in expression or statement.
+ CategoryInfo : ParserError: (:) [], ParentContainsErrorRecordException
+ FullyQualifiedErrorId : UnexpectedToken

PS E:\> 0 bad file records processed.
At line:1 char:5
+ 0 bad file records processed.
+ ~~~
Unexpected token 'bad' in expression or statement.
+ CategoryInfo : ParserError: (:) [], ParentContainsErrorRecordException
+ FullyQualifiedErrorId : UnexpectedToken

PS E:\>
PS E:\> Stage 2: Examining file name link
Stage : The term 'Stage' is not recognized as the name of a cmdlet, function, script file, or operable program. Check
the spelling of the name, or if a path was included, verify that the path is correct and try again.
At line:1 char:1
+ Stage 2: Examining file name link
+ ~~~~~
+ CategoryInfo : ObjectNotFound: (Stage:String) [], CommandNotFoundException
+ FullyQualifiedErrorId : CommandNotFoundException

PS E:\> 296308 index entries processed.
At line:1 char:10
+ 296308 index entries processed.
+ ~~~~~
Unexpected token 'index' in expression or statement.
+ CategoryInfo : ParserError: (:) [], ParentContainsErrorRecordException
+ FullyQualifiedErrorId : UnexpectedToken

PS E:\> Index verification completed.
Index : The term 'Index' is not recognized as the name of a cmdlet, function, script file, or operable program. Check
the spelling of the name, or if a path was included, verify that the path is correct and try again.
At line:1 char:1
+ Index verification completed.
+ ~~~~~
+ CategoryInfo : ObjectNotFound: (Index:String) [], CommandNotFoundException
+ FullyQualifiedErrorId : CommandNotFoundException

PS E:\> 0 unindexed files scanned.
At line:1 char:5
+ 0 unindexed files scanned.
+ ~~~~~~~~~
Unexpected token 'unindexed' in expression or statement.
+ CategoryInfo : ParserError: (:) [], ParentContainsErrorRecordException
+ FullyQualifiedErrorId : UnexpectedToken

PS E:\> 0 unindexed files recovered.
At line:1 char:5
+ 0 unindexed files recovered.
+ ~~~~~~~~~
Unexpected token 'unindexed' in expression or statement.
+ CategoryInfo : ParserError: (:) [], ParentContainsErrorRecordException
+ FullyQualifiedErrorId : UnexpectedToken

PS E:\>
PS E:\> Stage 3: Examining security descr
Stage : The term 'Stage' is not recognized as the name of a cmdlet, function, script file, or operable program. Check
the spelling of the name, or if a path was included, verify that the path is correct and try again.
At line:1 char:1
+ Stage 3: Examining security descr
+ ~~~~~
+ CategoryInfo : ObjectNotFound: (Stage:String) [], CommandNotFoundException
+ FullyQualifiedErrorId : CommandNotFoundException

PS E:\> Security descriptor verification
Security : The term 'Security' is not recognized as the name of a cmdlet, function, script file, or operable program.
Check the spelling of the name, or if a path was included, verify that the path is correct and try again.
At line:1 char:1
+ Security descriptor verification
+ ~~~~~~~~
+ CategoryInfo : ObjectNotFound: (Security:String) [], CommandNotFoundException
+ FullyQualifiedErrorId : CommandNotFoundException

PS E:\> 32827 data files processed.
At line:1 char:9
+ 32827 data files processed.
+ ~~~~
Unexpected token 'data' in expression or statement.
At line:1 char:19
+ 32827 data files processed.
+ ~
The Data section is missing its statement block.
+ CategoryInfo : ParserError: (:) [], ParentContainsErrorRecordException
+ FullyQualifiedErrorId : UnexpectedToken

PS E:\> CHKDSK is verifying Usn Journal..
Invalid parameter - verifying
PS E:\> 501834696 USN bytes processed.dfa
TIA
I was not expecting this drive to fail but i will be looking for a replacement (probably for both drives, the 7 year old one is old)
In fact in Rand McNally they wear hats on their feet and hamburders eat people
Share:
10 replies
Feb 6th, 2018 12:10 pm
PatK621
Sr. Member
Jan 12, 2017
541 posts
195 upvotes

Feb 6th, 2018 12:10 pm

Older drives seem to have better reliability. This one is starting to error out and the bad sectors are being re-allocated and new pointers established in a file table. It's anyone's guess how long this will hold up, but the writting is on the wall (there already has been some minor file damage, pruned).
+1
Feb 6th, 2018 4:18 pm
Exp315
Deal Addict
Jul 3, 2017
3860 posts
2787 upvotes

Feb 6th, 2018 4:18 pm

You have a few bad sectors, which could indicate a failing disk.

But beyond that, somehow the output of your CHKDSK has been fed back to the cmd line processor, which is attempting to interpret it as a series of new DOS commands.
+1
Feb 6th, 2018 7:07 pm
Poutsounia
Deal Addict
Feb 4, 2018
1009 posts
48 upvotes

Feb 6th, 2018 7:07 pm

Backup everything from that drive immediately. The bad sectors could simply be to bumping the drive (is this a Laptop?) or from heat damage. Either way, if it's the seek head dying, and it dies, you are toast and would have to resort to data recovery services.
+1
Feb 7th, 2018 10:24 am
Quentin5 [OP]
Deal Expert
User avatar
Feb 8, 2014
20552 posts
7689 upvotes
Socially Distanced

Feb 7th, 2018 10:24 am

PatK621 wrote: ↑Older drives seem to have better reliability. This one is starting to error out and the bad sectors are being re-allocated and new pointers established in a file table. It's anyone's guess how long this will hold up, but the writting is on the wall (there already has been some minor file damage, pruned).
I wonder why older drives would have better reliability, this one has not a lot of hours on it, its mostly used for backup purposes. Such is life i suppose.
Exp315 wrote: ↑You have a few bad sectors, which could indicate a failing disk.

But beyond that, somehow the output of your CHKDSK has been fed back to the cmd line processor, which is attempting to interpret it as a series of new DOS commands.
I see, this took about a day to run, i had started it when i woke up, but it froze for about 8 hours after the first few bad sectors, the rest of the errors appeared the next morning after being left alone all night.

Should i run this again?
heyyahblah wrote: ↑http://www.hdtune.com/download.html

Download HD Tune Pro Trial, check Health, if you get 'warning' means drive is about to go, backup and seek replacement. You can also run an error scan.
I used the free version on my internal 2TB but it refused to run on this 3TB external.
Poutsounia wrote: ↑ Backup everything from that drive immediately. The bad sectors could simply be to bumping the drive (is this a Laptop?) or from heat damage. Either way, if it's the seek head dying, and it dies, you are toast and would have to resort to data recovery services.
Its a backup drive, fortunately all the files with bad sectors are on the main drive undamaged but this is very concerning, it means i have an old drive that i don't know how long it will last (no bad sectors so far) and a newer backup drive with few hours on it that is failing.
In fact in Rand McNally they wear hats on their feet and hamburders eat people
Feb 7th, 2018 10:34 am
Poutsounia
Deal Addict
Feb 4, 2018
1009 posts
48 upvotes

Feb 7th, 2018 10:34 am

I wonder why older drives would have better reliability, this one has not a lot of hours on it, its mostly used for backup purposes. Such is life i suppose.
Because companies are trying to cut every corner possible to save money, hence the quality of the materials used to construct the newer drives have more common failure rates. I've had some really old SCSI drives that refuse to die. But I've had like 3 SATA drives go dead in the past 5 years.
+1
Feb 7th, 2018 10:43 am
Exp315
Deal Addict
Jul 3, 2017
3860 posts
2787 upvotes

Feb 7th, 2018 10:43 am

Quentin5 wrote: ↑this took about a day to run, i had started it when i woke up, but it froze for about 8 hours after the first few bad sectors, the rest of the errors appeared the next morning after being left alone all night.
I usually use HDDScan (free) to test drives, looking first at the S.M.A.R.T. report from the drive controller before running a surface test. With modern drives, the drive controller covers up a lot of errors internally by remapping before the os ever finds out about them, so you really need to check that S.M.A.R.T. report first.

There's a long-standing issue with testing for bad sectors in Windows. From the earliest days of MSDOS and floppy disks, the disk driver has been designed to anticipate possible disk errors. The first thing it does is retry - over and over again. But modern smart disk controllers already retry errors internally, hoping that it's a soft error that can be handled internally. And on top of that, the program probably retries too, especially if it's a disk driver tester. So when you multiple the 3 levels of testing together, you often get thousands of retries for each error, resulting in a long delay before the sector is marked bad and the test program moves on. But disk errors tend to come in clusters, so what happens is that when your HDD surface test program hits a bad spot, it stalls, often taking hours to test its way through a small bad spot on the drive. It's exasperating, and a rather dumb design shortcoming that should probably have been addressed long ago. However, there's nothing you can do but let it run.

When you are through, one of two situations will occur:

1. You will have a small number of sectors marked "bad" in the file system tables, and the os will not use them again. It may have been a one-time incident. Keep a close eye on the drive, but it may be ok going forward. However, do you really want to rely on it? Might be best to retire it to some backup role.

2. You will see an ever-expanding number of errors, growing as you keep testing, indicating progressive failure. Hope you backed up this drive before starting the test!
+1
Feb 7th, 2018 11:23 am
Poutsounia
Deal Addict
Feb 4, 2018
1009 posts
48 upvotes

Feb 7th, 2018 11:23 am

Exp315 wrote: ↑ I usually use HDDScan (free) to test drives, looking first at the S.M.A.R.T. report from the drive controller before running a surface test. With modern drives, the drive controller covers up a lot of errors internally by remapping before the os ever finds out about them, so you really need to check that S.M.A.R.T. report first.

There's a long-standing issue with testing for bad sectors in Windows. From the earliest days of MSDOS and floppy disks, the disk driver has been designed to anticipate possible disk errors. The first thing it does is retry - over and over again. But modern smart disk controllers already retry errors internally, hoping that it's a soft error that can be handled internally. And on top of that, the program probably retries too, especially if it's a disk driver tester. So when you multiple the 3 levels of testing together, you often get thousands of retries for each error, resulting in a long delay before the sector is marked bad and the test program moves on. But disk errors tend to come in clusters, so what happens is that when your HDD surface test program hits a bad spot, it stalls, often taking hours to test its way through a small bad spot on the drive. It's exasperating, and a rather dumb design shortcoming that should probably have been addressed long ago. However, there's nothing you can do but let it run.

When you are through, one of two situations will occur:

1. You will have a small number of sectors marked "bad" in the file system tables, and the os will not use them again. It may have been a one-time incident. Keep a close eye on the drive, but it may be ok going forward. However, do you really want to rely on it? Might be best to retire it to some backup role.

2. You will see an ever-expanding number of errors, growing as you keep testing, indicating progressive failure. Hope you backed up this drive before starting the test!
Yup, great info.

Also I've had drives with bad controller boards that never register any failures on a SMART report (or bad sectors) and yet are actually dying.

I was trying to troubleshoot one of those RAID enclosures that would die intermittently and come back, and I tested each individual disk like 5 times before I found that one of them was intermittently going offline. What pain in the butt.
Feb 7th, 2018 4:45 pm
heyyahblah
Deal Addict
User avatar
Dec 1, 2010
2026 posts
1074 upvotes
GTA

Feb 7th, 2018 4:45 pm

Poutsounia wrote: ↑ Because companies are trying to cut every corner possible to save money, hence the quality of the materials used to construct the newer drives have more common failure rates. I've had some really old SCSI drives that refuse to die. But I've had like 3 SATA drives go dead in the past 5 years.
^
THIS
Feb 8th, 2018 11:15 am
Quentin5 [OP]
Deal Expert
User avatar
Feb 8, 2014
20552 posts
7689 upvotes
Socially Distanced

Feb 8th, 2018 11:15 am

Exp315 wrote: ↑ I usually use HDDScan (free) to test drives, looking first at the S.M.A.R.T. report from the drive controller before running a surface test. With modern drives, the drive controller covers up a lot of errors internally by remapping before the os ever finds out about them, so you really need to check that S.M.A.R.T. report first.

There's a long-standing issue with testing for bad sectors in Windows. From the earliest days of MSDOS and floppy disks, the disk driver has been designed to anticipate possible disk errors. The first thing it does is retry - over and over again. But modern smart disk controllers already retry errors internally, hoping that it's a soft error that can be handled internally. And on top of that, the program probably retries too, especially if it's a disk driver tester. So when you multiple the 3 levels of testing together, you often get thousands of retries for each error, resulting in a long delay before the sector is marked bad and the test program moves on. But disk errors tend to come in clusters, so what happens is that when your HDD surface test program hits a bad spot, it stalls, often taking hours to test its way through a small bad spot on the drive. It's exasperating, and a rather dumb design shortcoming that should probably have been addressed long ago. However, there's nothing you can do but let it run.

When you are through, one of two situations will occur:

1. You will have a small number of sectors marked "bad" in the file system tables, and the os will not use them again. It may have been a one-time incident. Keep a close eye on the drive, but it may be ok going forward. However, do you really want to rely on it? Might be best to retire it to some backup role.

2. You will see an ever-expanding number of errors, growing as you keep testing, indicating progressive failure. Hope you backed up this drive before starting the test!
Thanks for the explanation. I will try out that software, though this is the backup drive, i am thinking of replacing it and the main drive (no errors so far but purchased circa 2010 with >30,000 hours on it). I have had a couple drives die before, it was not fun, lost data both times, could not afford backup drives at the time and one backup failed.
In fact in Rand McNally they wear hats on their feet and hamburders eat people

Reply to Thread
Back to top
Top

Trending Hot Deals