stupid_idiot
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3db3d/3db3d59337ccc8bc3ec15645b7ab368bce77b85a" alt="Offline"
Group: Members
Posts: 344
Joined: Oct. 2006 |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/cd3a8/cd3a84c67c9ea531b591a3a8b33552269a04250f" alt="" |
Posted: July 16 2007,11:23 |
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d6c44/d6c44952b272c7945ab6f79c02e4aece27e637ca" alt="QUOTE" |
Yes, I believe it may be possible to run `chkdsk` on a USB drive. I have only followed the information stated in the `chkdsk` manual, here (www.microsoft.com). Do try the following (from Windows XP, not the XP CD): `chkdsk drive_letter /r /x`
The `chkdsk` manual warns that this may take a long time. Quote: "If you use chkdsk /f on a very large disk (for example, 70 gigabytes) or a disk with a very large number of files (for example, millions of files), chkdsk might take a long time (for example, over several days) to complete. The computer is not available during this time because chkdsk does not relinquish control until it is finished."
I think this is likely the worst-case scenario, but I am not sure. It sounds like a good warning for people using 80GB drives with a Pentium II. It should be much faster on modern systems, but should still take a pretty long time. The real killer is the 'bad block checking' feature. Checking for bad blocks on an ext3 filesystem in Linux takes very, very long as well.
|