Replacement option(s) for chkdsk

[britechguy]

I know that recently one of our data recovery experts (and I'm sorry I cannot recall who) said that using chkdsk is really not something one wants to do in this day and age because it can cause as many problems as it can fix. If, by chance, my memory is faulty, then correction would be appreciated.

But, presuming I am remembering correctly, what are the suggested altenatives?

 

[Markverhyden]

dism and sfc comes to mind. But some os versions I've seen recently were missing some of the dism switches.

 

[britechguy]

Seriously, DISM and SFC have disk checking functions like chkdsk? I've never been told that, nor seen them used. They always seemed to me to be more "are all the Windows files and folders that should be there actually there and, if not, replace the missing ones" utilities.

 

[Porthos]

I believe the warning was chkdsk on a failing drive is bad.

 

[phaZed]

I run a chkdsk on almost everything that comes in (Assuming a tuneup, malware removal, etc). Ya, no good for broken drives, but works well otherwise.

 

[Markverhyden]

If you have file system corruption, for ever reason, chkdsk will almost always finish the job for you. Seen that way too many times. Probably been some 15 years since I last used it. If you do a search for "repair a corrupted W10" most of them will mention both dism and sfc. All three of them have plenty of switches to choose from.

In reality, with the latest versions for W10, none of the tools seem to make any difference. So if something is corrupted it's just nuke and pave. All modern OS's do a lot of house keeping in the background which make them more reliable.

 

[Appletax]

PowerShell: Repair-Volume -DriveLetter C -OfflineScanAndFix

Repair-Volume (Storage)

Use this topic to help manage Windows and Windows Server technologies with Windows PowerShell.

docs.microsoft.com

It is extremely fast so I think it doesn't do everything Check Disk does.

I bet it does not search for bad sectors and recover data out of them.

chkdsk /f /r C:

/f = fixes errors on disk

/r = locates bad sectors and recovers readable information

I have used Check Disk on failing hard drives and it fixed tons of stuff and made the computer bootable again. But, not a good idea. Want to backup the data offline (e.g., connect to bench PC with HDD dock).

I always run DISM Repair, Check Disk, System File Checker, and Repair-Volume on all systems to make sure the data and OS are in tip-top shape.

Online - DISM /Online /Cleanup-Image /Restorehealth
Offline - Dism /Online /Cleanup-Image /RestoreHealth /Source: D:\ /LimitAccess
- No space between /Source: D:\ - putting them together products a

Online - sfc /scannow
Offline - sfc /scannow /offbootdir=d:\ /offwindir=d:\windows

chkdsk /f /r C:

Repair-Volume -DriveLetter C -OfflineScanAndFix

 

[Sky-Knight]

NTFS has built in corrective function, Windows builds on that. There is no need to run chkdsk unless something has gone horribly wrong, and the same applies to repair-volume. The only time you should be using these tools is after you've imaged the data onto a new disk in an attempt to repair the volume damaged by the dying drive during the imaging process.

Note, DISM and SFC repair WINDOWS, chkdsk and repair-volume repair the NTFS volumes that are holding windows. So these tools have nothing to do with each other... Well other than the former set will cause the latter problem to get much larger if run on a damaged disk.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

Although I've seen people balk at the use of checkdisk, we have used it many, many times....with great success.
I will note, if ANY data on the suspect drive is important, the smart move is to clone that drive to another good drive...and then work on reviving that drive, shelving the original to be an unmolested archive.

If the suspect drive can afford to be "a goner"...run checkdisk, may be surprised at how well it can work. Just..back up data first if you can. Or..again, if it's important, do a sector by sector clone to a healthy drive..and then work on that drive to bring things back to life.

Our experience with windows repair tools like DISM and SCF...they take a really long time, usually with unsuccessful results.

 

[alexsmith2709]

I've had a lot of success with DISM and SFC, if i suspect any windows file corruption i'll run those. There is the odd occasion it wont fix all the corrupt files but can get things in a better state, if say its some windows update files that have become corrupt.
I never run chkdsk anymore. I used to, but since learning it can often do more harm than good i dont use it. If i suspect a drive is failing i image it before doing anything else.

 

[sapphirescales]

Chkdsk is a great tool. There's a reason why it's still included in Windows. In fact, Windows will automatically run Chkdsk at startup if it detects corrupt files. That being said, it's designed to run on a properly working drive. If the drive is suspect, image it first before running Chkdsk.

Another thing you can do is mount the drive in Mac OS or Linux. Drives that show up as "unknown" or refuse to mount in Windows will frequently work just fine in Mac OS or Linux. Simply mounting a damaged drive in Mac OS or Linux is a lot gentler on a failing drive than trying to do a complete image. This is especially true if all the client needs is the contents of the Documents folder, for example.

In conclusion, Chkdsk has its place, but only if you've ruled out hardware failure first. You shouldn't run ANY file system/OS repair tool on a failing drive, not just Chkdsk. When a failing drive comes in, I try to just grab the files in Windows. If that fails then I plug the drive into a Mac and see if I can get them from there. If that fails, then I'll image the drive using DDRescue and then work off the image.

Of course, if the drive has obvious signs of a serious hardware issue (i.e., not spinning up, clicking, etc.) I immediately send it out to a professional data recovery center. Every situation is different, but you shouldn't write off Chkdsk. It's still a great tool even today.

 

[britechguy]

The main reason for asking this question is that it is not at all infrequent to get the (most often spurious) message that something's wrong with a USB drive when you plug it in and that it should be scanned. I have yet to ever have such scan come back as anything but clean.

Many on the various blind technology groups are asking about what they should do. If CHKDSK is just fine when we're talking about a non-failing, or at least presumed non-failing, drive of any type then that's really all I need to know.

I don't care what the utility might be, nothing gets run against a presumed failing drive except to clone or image it (generally the latter). If I have to put any stress whatsoever on a failing drive it's going to be in an attempt to get its contents offloaded to a known good drive before complete failure occurs. I'll never be using repair utilities, and that's what I consider CHKDSK to be.

 

[Markverhyden]

The main reason for asking this question is that it is not at all infrequent to get the (most often spurious) message that something's wrong with a USB drive when you plug it in and that it should be scanned. I have yet to ever have such scan come back as anything but clean.

Many on the various blind technology groups are asking about what they should do. If CHKDSK is just fine when we're talking about a non-failing, or at least presumed non-failing, drive of any type then that's really all I need to know.

I don't care what the utility might be, nothing gets run against a presumed failing drive except to clone or image it (generally the latter). If I have to put any stress whatsoever on a failing drive it's going to be in an attempt to get its contents offloaded to a known good drive before complete failure occurs. I'll never be using repair utilities, and that's what I consider CHKDSK to be.

Ok. That's a little bit of a different animal. USB storage devices are often improperly removed from a OS which can cause the dirty bit flag to get set which in turn creates the prompt tp run it when it's re-attached to a file system. Personally I just ignore those, especially USB sticks. I never gracefully unmount them (right click>eject)

 

[britechguy]

I never gracefully unmount them (right click>eject)

Nor do I. It does seem, though, that even people who do so religiously still sometimes get the spurious warning, but probably less frequently.

 

[GTP]

I run a chkdsk on almost everything that comes in (Assuming a tuneup, malware removal, etc). Ya, no good for broken drives, but works well otherwise.

Same here. I've had great success at fixing weird issues running chkdsk.
Always the last job after a cleanup/malware removal or whenever something "weird" is happening.
I always test the drive first and image/backup accordingly.

 

[britechguy]

I always test the drive first

How? [And that's a serious query as to what it is you do, not snark].

 

[nlinecomputers]

How? [And that's a serious query as to what it is you do, not snark].

Crystaldisk and or manufacturer’s hard drive diagnostic utility.

 

[Diggs]

I tend to run chkdsk only on cloned drives not the original. I'll clone using Linux and ddrescue on to a drive of the same size and geometry. Then I'll run chkdsk. Then image. As @Markverhyden mentioned, once the dirty bit gets tripped chkdsk is the easiest way to reset it.

 

[fincoder]

In my opinion chkdsk is only good for filesystem corruption but not for drive hardware faults. Filesystem corruption can mean a faulty drive, so drive hardware diagnostics needs to be run to eliminate that first. I use Crystal Disk Info to make the decision for me if possible, but a HDD with signs of slowness or other issues is declared faulty hardware usually anyway. I used to run full surface scan diagnostics (e.g. Seatools long test) but rarely bother with that now.

 

[britechguy]

In my opinion chkdsk is only good for filesystem corruption but not for drive hardware faults.

I agree. But this is also the only thing I ever knew it to be intentionally designed to handle. It is not a "disk fixer" but a "filesystem on the disk fixer."

It would have better been named CHKFS