Disk testing tools?

[Hermskii]

I have a couple of questions about testing hard drives to make sure they are good. There is nothing worse than using a old hard drive from somewhere and installing to it like an operating system just to find out the drive has bad sectors.

Windows XP has the Error-checking tool built into it. I have found very often that it won't report any bad sectors on a hard drive when tested while in the event viewer I can see entries saying that a bad sector has been detected and that I should replace my hard drive.

I also wonder if the Error-checking tool in XP is the same test as running Dskchk from the command promt. So my questions are as follows:

What do you use to determine the condition of a hard drive prior to installing it.
What built in Windows tool do you feel is best to believe when testing hard drives?
Can a Dskchk test give different results than a dskchk test?
Should I pay closure attention to Window's Error-checking test results or the event log?
What 3rd party programs/utilities/tools do you use and would recommend?

Thanks everybody!

 

[Blazer]

the HD utilities from the manufactuer is the best to use.

enable 'Smart' for the HD and monitor the boot screen for arising disk problems.

DiskDirector and True image from Acronis adds even more utilities to the tool box.

buying 'Retail' Boxed HD's will come with a CD that includes utilities.

 

[SickBeast]

HD Tune has some nice diagnostic tools, plus it's a de-facto hard drive performance benchmark, which would allow you to compare your drives with others on the web.

There is also HD Tach, but I prefer HD Tune.

 

[BlueAcolyte]

HD Tune, Checkdsk, spinrite, manufacturer diagnostic tools, SMART (kinda useless), linux fsck.

 

[watdahel]

I've used Windows XP dskchk, Seagates' Sea Tools and Hitachi's Drive Fitness Test to determine if a drive has unfixable bad clusters.

If you're gonna test a system drive or partition with dskchk do it in the Recovery Console with the /r switch. Run it twice and if it reports bad clusters on the second test then assume the drive is bad.

You can also partition a bad drive if you know what part of the disk contains the bad clusters and the size. If its only a few kilobytes then it may be worth saving the drive, but the procedure is trial and error and involves a lot of time and effort. First you make two equal partitions and test each if they contain bad clusters. If a partition contains bad cluster you further partition that partition into two and test for bad clusters and repeat until you've cornered the bad clusters. Once you've had enough you can simply delete all the good partitions and make one good partition. You can delete the bad partition afterwards and forget about it.

The Acronis tool really makes the partitioning easy because you can specify where a partition is located on the drive.

 

[pcgeek11]

Originally posted by: erwin1978
You can also partition a bad drive if you know what part of the disk contains the bad clusters and the size. If its only a few kilobytes then it may be worth saving the drive, but the procedure is trial and error and involves a lot of time and effort.

I have never seen this to be true. The bad clusters will continue to get larger and will eventually result in data loss. It isn't worth the risk with respect to the cost of a new disk.

My 2C

pcgeek11

 

[Nothinman]

I also wonder if the Error-checking tool in XP is the same test as running Dskchk from the command promt. So my questions are as follows:

It's chkdsk, and yes they're the same.

What do you use to determine the condition of a hard drive prior to installing it.

I benchmark the drive for a day or so to stress test it and see if anything bad happens.

What built in Windows tool do you feel is best to believe when testing hard drives?

The only built-in tool is chkdsk.

Can a Dskchk test give different results than a dskchk test?

That question makes no sense.

Should I pay closure attention to Window's Error-checking test results or the event log?

Both should give similar results, but you've got to actually tell chkdsk to perform a bad sector scan because it won't by default.

 

[watdahel]

Originally posted by: pcgeek11

Originally posted by: erwin1978
You can also partition a bad drive if you know what part of the disk contains the bad clusters and the size. If its only a few kilobytes then it may be worth saving the drive, but the procedure is trial and error and involves a lot of time and effort.

I have never seen this to be true. The bad clusters will continue to get larger and will eventually result in data loss. It isn't worth the risk with respect to the cost of a new disk.

My 2C

pcgeek11

your mileage will vary.

 

[VinDSL]

I think it's pretty hard to beat TestDisk 6.10!

Actually, I'm running it right now...

Specific to your situation (possibly): http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/Damaged_Hard_Disk

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: erwin1978
I've used Windows XP dskchk, Seagates' Sea Tools and Hitachi's Drive Fitness Test to determine if a drive has unfixable bad clusters.

If you're gonna test a system drive or partition with dskchk do it in the Recovery Console with the /r switch. Run it twice and if it reports bad clusters on the second test then assume the drive is bad.

You can also partition a bad drive if you know what part of the disk contains the bad clusters and the size. If its only a few kilobytes then it may be worth saving the drive, but the procedure is trial and error and involves a lot of time and effort. First you make two equal partitions and test each if they contain bad clusters. If a partition contains bad cluster you further partition that partition into two and test for bad clusters and repeat until you've cornered the bad clusters. Once you've had enough you can simply delete all the good partitions and make one good partition. You can delete the bad partition afterwards and forget about it.

The Acronis tool really makes the partitioning easy because you can specify where a partition is located on the drive.

Don't waste your time. Use the mfg's disk diagnostic tools, to do a full surface scan, followed by a write zeros, followed by a full surface scan.

Any sectors that are flagged bad by the first surface scan, should be re-allocated from spare sectors when you do the write-zeros pass, so that the final surface scan should be clean. If it isn't, then don't use the drive, as it is either continually growing bad sectors, or you have run out of spare sectors for the remap, so either way the drive is toast.

Edit: The now-discontinued HDTach 2.61 (registered), will do a disk benchmark, and you can tell by the shape of the graph, whether or not the HD has bad spots on it, or is failing in general. It's a very good diagnostic, it's too bad that the newer versions of HDTach use many less samples for benchmarking the drive. IOW, newer versions are fine as a transfer-rate benchmark, but they are useless for disk response-time diagnostics, that the previous version was good for.

 

[skyking]

Nothing beats the convenience of the ultimate boot cd.
It has the manufacturer's tools from seagate, wd, hitachi, samsung, maxtor.
I found that the IBM DFT does a fine job and will test any non-ibm/hitachi drive, unlike many of the other utilities. I use that one as a quick screening test. Chances are a good result from DFT will be validated by the manufacturer's utility.

 

[pcgeek11]

Originally posted by: skyking
Nothing beats the convenience of the ultimate boot cd.
It has the manufacturer's tools from seagate, wd, hitachi, samsung, maxtor.
I found that the IBM DFT does a fine job and will test any non-ibm/hitachi drive, unlike many of the other utilities. I use that one as a quick screening test. Chances are a good result from DFT will be validated by the manufacturer's utility.

I agree 100%

pcgeek11