Bad Sectors
Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2011 8:46 am
Hey everyone, here I am with my monthly dumb question... ;)
The 80GTB SATA hard drive out of my little boys' computer was hanging badly, so I did some testing on it with HDD Regenerator and it shows two to three THOUSAND bad sectors, in such bad shape that after running the program a few times over the last 4 days it only regenerates 10-20 each pass, which is practically useless due to the amount of bad ones left and the time it takes to run a pass (It may just be regenerating the same few which don't stay viable, I dunno). I can look at a list of where the bad sectors are, and it shows a few at around the 4GB range, with the majority clustered randomly between the 34GB>>>48GB range. Due to not being able to afford new hard drives right now I would like to find a way to still use this drive, probably as storage for his Xvid movies I make for him. I know that running Chkdsk will take note of bad sectors and the OS will blacklist them so they won't be used anymore but I was wondering if due to the large amount of them it would be more stable if I would just repartition into two partitions with the first being between the beginning of the drive and 34GTB (and let the OS blacklist those few bad sectors), then leave unpartitioned space between 34GB>>>48GB, then a second partition after 48GB up to the end of the drive. I figure I would be losing that 14GB, but at least the OS (WinXP) wouldn't have to be dealing with the bad sectors, and still having 60GB + of usable space for short-term storage would be better than nothing...
Whaddya think?
PS this question would be moot if someone local has a SATA drive or two that they would like to sell me for cheap hint hint hint... ;)
The 80GTB SATA hard drive out of my little boys' computer was hanging badly, so I did some testing on it with HDD Regenerator and it shows two to three THOUSAND bad sectors, in such bad shape that after running the program a few times over the last 4 days it only regenerates 10-20 each pass, which is practically useless due to the amount of bad ones left and the time it takes to run a pass (It may just be regenerating the same few which don't stay viable, I dunno). I can look at a list of where the bad sectors are, and it shows a few at around the 4GB range, with the majority clustered randomly between the 34GB>>>48GB range. Due to not being able to afford new hard drives right now I would like to find a way to still use this drive, probably as storage for his Xvid movies I make for him. I know that running Chkdsk will take note of bad sectors and the OS will blacklist them so they won't be used anymore but I was wondering if due to the large amount of them it would be more stable if I would just repartition into two partitions with the first being between the beginning of the drive and 34GTB (and let the OS blacklist those few bad sectors), then leave unpartitioned space between 34GB>>>48GB, then a second partition after 48GB up to the end of the drive. I figure I would be losing that 14GB, but at least the OS (WinXP) wouldn't have to be dealing with the bad sectors, and still having 60GB + of usable space for short-term storage would be better than nothing...
Whaddya think?
PS this question would be moot if someone local has a SATA drive or two that they would like to sell me for cheap hint hint hint... ;)