Unreadable drive after using chkdsk

[johnrobert]

Client ran chkdsk now unreadable 1 Tb 2.5 spinner not expecting much success she does not want to send it out

I connected to a Linux box last picture also rebooted Windows clean. all pictures connected USB

 

[fincoder]

does not want to send it out

Then use data recovery software. I use GetDataBack. As long as it's detected in Disk Manager, software can attempt recovery by reconstructing the filesystem (in memory in the case of GetDataBack, it doesn't modify the original drive).

Have you checked the SMART status of the drive? I use Crystal Disk Info for that.

 

[johnrobert]

Thanks it's been a while since I did any of this stuff, I will try GetDataBack I used to have R-studio

SMART status

 

[NviGate Systems]

Image first! That drive being Seagate can snowball! It's a failing drive with bad sectors. You never ever run recovery on a failing device!

Rule #1

 

[Sky-Knight]

Rule #1, never run chkdisk on a faulty drive.
Rule #2, never run chkdisk on a faulty drive.
Rule #3, image the thing before you do anything.
Rule #4, repeat the above three rules until ingrained in memory.
Rule #5, tattoo the above process onto inside of eyelids in case memory fails.

Off to the clean room it goes!

 

[nlinecomputers]

Well according to the OP Rule1 and 2 were broken by the client before the tech laid hands on the drive.

 

[britechguy]

Well according to the OP Rule1 and 2 were broken by the client before the tech laid hands on the drive.

True. But it doesn't hurt to re-emphasize (as people do sometimes forget) that one never runs chkdsk on any drive suspected of being in the process of failure.

I think even I missed or forgot "the client" part. But what's done is done, and this is a case where the immortal lyrics of the Bangles, "What is lost can always be regained," ring decidedly false.

 

[NviGate Systems]

Well according to the OP Rule1 and 2 were broken by the client before the tech laid hands on the drive.

There was mention that OP was going to run recovery tools to attempt data recovery. So a reminder is in order to never run recovery on a failing drive.

 

[nlinecomputers]

There was mention that OP was going to run recovery tools to attempt data recovery. So a reminder is in order to never run recovery on a failing drive.

Rule 3

 

[fincoder]

SMART status

Crystal Disk Info reporting CAUTION means the drive is failing (in this case bad sectors) or should be treated as such. It most likely would hold up during a file recovery operation but the general advice is to clone first (sector-by-sector clone, not a 'smart' clone).

Personally, when it's CAUTION I usually go straight ahead and recover the files if the filesystem is still functioning. Why? Because the drive is already mounted in Windows, and copying specific folders and files results in fewer read operations than a full clone.

If the filesystem is corrupted (can't see the folders in File Explorer), then I would clone first because the recovery software will likely need to scan the entire drive anyway and it makes more sense to do that in a clone operation first. Then recovery software can be run against the clone.

 

[lcoughey]

Wow! I am impressed to see others comment about chkdsk being bad and to always start with an image of the offending drive.

 

[HCHTech]

It takes a while but we can occasionally learn things -

 

[GTP]

Wow! I am impressed to see others comment about chkdsk being bad and to always start with an image of the offending drive.

Sorry to buck the trend, but...
Out of the thousands of times I've run chkdsk I've never once had a problem. Ever.
It's made unbootable drives boot, unreadable file systems readable and fixed file system errors in Windows that caused all kinds of weirdness that wasn't there after running chkdsk.
And yes, I always imaged first.

So I must be unique in the IT world.

 

[britechguy]

So I must be unique in the IT world.

You almost certainly are one of a select few.

I've had chkdsk fix quite a few things, too, but only on healthy drives. Running it on anything in the process of failing (and, yes, there were days when I was "young and stupid") was always a highway to hell.

If you know the drive is otherwise healthy based on SMART or CrystalDiskInfo, sure, give it a whirl if you so choose. But only after imaging the thing first, just as a belt and braces sort of precaution.

 

[nlinecomputers]

It is rare that I actually have to run chkdsk anymore. Back in the Xp days, you ran it often and it fixed stuff. Nowadays I rarely see a true file structure issue (Modern NTFS is very self-correcting) and that is usually also a hardware problem, which is when you DON'T run chkdsk.

 

[britechguy]

It is rare that I actually have to run chkdsk anymore.

I can't honestly remember the last time I actually used it. Definitely a "utility of the past" for me.

 

[Sky-Knight]

Chkdsk has its value, it does correct corruption that can happen in various circumstances.

That being said, NTFS specifically is largely self healing, so unless it's a FAT volume you should almost never need to run it for anything ever anymore.

This trend is so solid that today, if I see it trying to run I kill the machine and immediately image the drive. I have to assume the disk is faulty. Yes it adds more time on the few cases where it's a quick fix, but that's better than being stuck with a clean room bill for the vast majority of devices that die during or shortly after chkdsk completes.

 

[Blues]

I am with folks on the secure and backup data first but my experience with chkdsk has been more inline with @GTP where I find it either fixes a problem or effectively does nothing. I do understand the principle of how it can negatively impact a failing drive but once I have a backup it is probably near the top of things to do to the drive for me.

 

[britechguy]

I do understand the principle of how it can negatively impact a failing drive but once I have a backup it is probably near the top of things to do to the drive for me.

No disrespect intended, but provided you have taken a backup (whether by clone or imaging) no one should really give a damn what is done to the original. All the more so if the original does not have any signs of being in the process of failing.

The concern about chkdsk comes from the fact that it "really exercises" a HDD and if it's in the process of failing is something that can push it over the edge. But if you have a backup you can restore from, what does that matter? Risk of loss of anything is virtually zero in that circumstance. [And before anyone says it, yes, I know, a clone could be corrupt as could an image backup, but how often has that ever happened? It's about protecting against probable loss, not remotely possible loss.]

 

[lcoughey]

Actually, chdsk will drop entire folder trees and rename other files in a found.000 folder.