lost chain files in xp

[CheungMoKee]

Dear Anandtechers,

My friend lost sev gigz of files and folders from a scandisk run on winxp which were converted to those file check files ... I was wondering if u guys know how to get that stuff back? thx in advance for any solutions, advice, and recommendations


CheungMoKee

 

[Nothinman]

The files are there, he just has to go through each .chk file and figure out what they are and rename them.

This is yet another reason not to use FAT.

 

[johnlog]

When running scandisk or whatever comes with XP if your hard drive has many hard drive errors scandisk will find those error files and convert them to .CHK files.

If you lost megs or gigs of files then your or their hard drive was a total mess with HD errors or cross-linked files or both. That can occur when turning off the computer without selecting shutdown first.

I have XP Pro installed with FAT32 and have not ever had a problem with hard drive errors or cross linked files.

One way to correct those hard driver errors is to open a DOS window. At the prompt type CHKDSK/F on each partition.

A message will come up asking if you want to dismount the drive. Select N for no. A second message comes up asking if you wish to run CHKDSK/F on the drives next time you boot up. This time select Y for yes. Next time you boot the computer just before Windows starts loading a message will come up on screen saying it is going to run CHKDSK/F or a similar messsage. Do not touch any keys on your keyboard. In ten seconds CHKDSK/F will run and check your hard drive for errors and if any are found it will fix them.

Caution. Just typing CHKDSK won't work. You must type CHKDSK/F for it to fix hard drive errors next time you boot up the computer.

If you do that about once a week then it will catch and fix hard drive errors before they become gig sized errors.

 

[Nothinman]

If you do that about once a week then it will catch and fix hard drive errors before they become gig sized errors.

You should not have to run chkdsk weekly, even on extremely fragile filesystems like FAT.

 

[johnlog]

Nothin,

>You should not have to run chkdsk weekly, even on extremely fragile filesystems like FAT. <<<

That all depends on whether you want a solid running system or a system that seems buggy all the time. Once a week might be to often for normal use but if a person has gigs of files corrupted they would need to run CHKDSK/F more often than the rest of us do.

I use FAT32 on my XP Pro system since XP was released and I have not had any corruption on my hard drive since then. FAT32 is not all that fragile but it depends on your system whether even if NTSF is going to be fool proof or not. Some on Anandtech are having problems with their hard drives who are using NTFS. It is not a panacea.

 

[Nothinman]

That all depends on whether you want a solid running system or a system that seems buggy all the time.

No, it really doesn't.

Once a week might be to often for normal use but if a person has gigs of files corrupted they would need to run CHKDSK/F more often than the rest of us do

If he's got gigs of chk files he either rebooted (power outage, bsod, whatever) during a large file copy/move and half the data was lost in transit or he's got bigger issues like bad hardware. Data doesn't just get lost during normal use, even on Windows using a shoddy fs like FAT.

FAT32 is not all that fragile

Yes, it is.

There's 1 point of failure, if the FAT gets corrupt everything is lost.
Long filenames were glued on after the fact, they're stored in 'special' clusters so if you use a non-LFN aware app you lose your LFNs. And for every LFN you use, you lose disk space because it takes up extra clusters to store them.
There's no journaling so shutting off in the middle of an I/O operation results in many chk files, like the original poster has seen.

There are other reasons, I'm just tired and don't feel like thinking them up right now. MS wants people to stop using FAT, that's why they put the 32G superficial limit on it in Win2K and XP, they want you to use NTFS because it's 1000x better and more reliable.

but it depends on your system whether even if NTSF is going to be fool proof or not

Nothing is fool proof, especially if you have the hardware problems that I'm suspecting the original poster has. But NTFS is a lot more resiliant and handles errors a lot better.

Some on Anandtech are having problems with their hard drives who are using NTFS. It is not a panacea.

The filesystem doesn't have anything to do with disk problems. Most likely they're having problems recovering data on an NTFS partition because it requires slightly different procedures than FAT, or they've got a genuine hardware problem which means nothing in regards to the filesystem.

I never described NTFS as a panacea, but it's helluva lot better than FAT. FAT is a legacy filesystem who's usage should be limited to floppies and other small capacity devices.