Re: repair NTFS: better than chkdsk?
- From: "Kerry Brown" <kerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*a*m>
- Date: Sat, 27 May 2006 16:00:52 -0700
Hugo Trebl wrote:
Sprinrite claims to have relocated most of the data in the bad
sectors, but spinrite does not deal with the filesystem. The
filesystem is still corrupt, and several folders cannot be accessed
I made tests by cloning the disc and running chkdsk on the clone, and
was able to recover some more of the files I was still missing.
However, chkdsk did not tell me which files where affected by the bad
sectors, and it gave no clue whether those files can be trusted to be
intact
I was just wondering if there is something better than chkdsk in
dealing with filesystem corruption.
I think back in the days of FAT Norton Disc Doctor could sometimes do
a better job than scandisk, but I don't trust norton nowadays
You've gone about it the right way but make sure you keep at least one clone
that you don't do anything to. Once you've recovered anything you can from a
clone then have a go at the original drive before you trash it. With bad
sectors chkdsk sometimes loses more than it fixes but I don't know of a
better alternative. Ontrack (www.ontrack.com) has a good reputation. I have
never used their data recovery tools so I can't make a personal
recommendation. If the data is very important to you do nothing more to the
drive. You may make it worse. It will cost some money but the best bet is a
data recovery specialist.
--
Kerry
MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User
.
- References:
- repair NTFS: better than chkdsk?
- From: Hugo Trebl
- Re: repair NTFS: better than chkdsk?
- From: Kerry Brown
- Re: repair NTFS: better than chkdsk?
- From: Hugo Trebl
- repair NTFS: better than chkdsk?
- Prev by Date: Re: Messenger service
- Next by Date: Re: boot.ini
- Previous by thread: Re: repair NTFS: better than chkdsk?
- Next by thread: Re: repair NTFS: better than chkdsk?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
