Hard disk checking - equivalent for windows scandisk

[jessejazza]

So far i haven't found an equivalent for windows scandisk. Before storing data on floppies or a hard disk i have always found it beneficial to use scandisk.

So far in ubuntu i haven't found a command that does similar. 'fsck' claims to check but it is so limited by comparison. Someone has told me that there isn't - smartmontools is applicable to modern disk drives but there is nothing equivalent to scandisk.

What do folk use? I'm sure i've been looking in the wrong place. I keep all data on remote hard drives [for storage and another for backups] so that i can update to the new 6 month release... what do other folk do?

Perhaps i'm one of those "Oh ye of little faith". So far i've kept an old win 98 machine for doing format and scandisk... i've missed the point somewhere!

thanks

[dibl]

Re: Hard disk checking - equivalent for windows scandisk

Welcome!

I understand your desire to be very careful with your data, but I don't follow your assessment of fdisk as being "so limited by comparison". Could you perhaps list the features of scandisk that you feel are missing, and how they relate to protecting your data?

Also, to what degree do you believe an ext3 filesystem needs "fixing", compared to Windows FAT32 or NTFS?

[askrieger]

Re: Hard disk checking - equivalent for windows scandisk

To amplify dibl's comment a little, Linux file systems don't need checking like M$ filesystems. File systems like ext3 and RFS are "journaling" systems wherein data is substantially easier to recover than it is in FAT or even NTFS. However, Kubuntu (and most other Linux distros) run fsck, the file system check utiliity periodically on reboot.

[jessejazza]

Re: Hard disk checking - equivalent for windows scandisk

When i've prepared a disk for data i have always done a FULL format and then checked the disk - using windows 98. Whether a hard disk or floppy - amazing how many floppies have bad sectors even when new. To some extent it is my old habit.

In linux i am aware that ext 3 has journaling. I wish to prepare remote hard drives for use on linux and windows (now got XP). fdisk sets the partitioning but i don't think it does any checking. Many folk i suppose don't bother... just do backups and backup of backup. I thought the best format for a remote hard drive was vfat which then allows me to use it under windows as well. Then i have the same format for any remote storage memstick or hard drive.

It would seem my logic is wrong so to put it another way i'd be grateful if you could recommend the best procedure. what do you do?

[dibl]

Re: Hard disk checking - equivalent for windows scandisk

I thought the best format for a remote hard drive was vfat which then allows me to use it under windows as well.

This is where I believe you are on the wrong theory. Even NTFS would be a more reliable choice than FAT32, but ext3 is superior to NTFS.

I think maybe you're suffering a bit from doing things the right way, but for 1988, not 2008. I mean no offense -- I'm older than dirt myself and have had to "unlearn" lots of previous "right ways" for computer operations, as technology has evolved. :P

First -- full disclaimer: I am no filesystem developer, and could make a wrong statement at any moment. So having totally discredited myself ....

FAT32, aka "vfat" in Linux, is a filesystem that has no capability to repair itself - a lost data bit is gone forever. ext3 and the other Linux filesystems, and NTFS to some extent, are "journalling" filesystems -- they build a journal of validating checksums to help insure the integrity of the data on the filesystem. That journal is checked fairly frequently, or upon command, and has the data within it to reconstruct what was lost in the event of an unplanned power loss (within reasonable limits).

In my ever-humble opinion, if it were necessary to run a Windows OS and access important data on a partition or drive to be shared with Linux, I would install the ext2IFS driver from here on Windows, and use it that way, leaving the data on an ext3 filesystem. As a matter of fact, I do something like that with my own critical data, which happens to be a genealogy database created in Windows, but saved on a Linux filesystem. Since I use VMware Player to run the Win XP VM, I don't need the special driver, but if I were running a bootable Windows OS, that's what I would do.

More information on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ext3

http://www.fat-ntfs.com/articles/har...ion/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_file_systems

http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/file/ntfs/index.htm


Finally, on the subject of hard disk drive "bad sectors" or media surface defects, you should know that modern hard disk drives incorporating S.M.A.R.T. technology have a degree of "self-healing" available - it is no longer necessary to "prepare" the drive by finding and manually excluding bad sectors, and stuff like that. I do remember doing that, but not lately.

[jessejazza]

Re: Hard disk checking - equivalent for windows scandisk

Thanks Dibl for your long post with useful info.

I'm old fashioned obviously. I'll give that download a try. I read a post that recommended using vfat for remote drives so that's what i tried.

Now that i have xp ext3 isn't such a problem i suppose. I'm also looking at 'smartmontools'.

[jessejazza]

Re: Hard disk checking - equivalent for windows scandisk

I've changed my two remote hard drives to ext3. They are the older type, one 20gb and the other 80gb so i don't think the 'smart' side of it will work.

One thing i don't understand is why usb is vfat? USB is a memory type of file storage?

If using floppy, one can format in dos or ext2 (i imagine because journaling isn't available for floppies) should one still choose ext2? If that's the case why does *buntu default to DOS formatting.

thanks

[dibl]

Re: Hard disk checking - equivalent for windows scandisk

Linux is happy to read and write to FAT32, aka "vfat" filesystem format. But that doesn't make it a good choice, if you have better choices available.

For floppies, USB sticks, SD cards, etc., you don't want a journalling filesystem, generally, because these media are slower to access, and/or have a far more limited number of write cycles than a hard disk drive. The journal-writing activity accelerates the "wear" in terms of media life, and you wouldn't normally be changing critical data all the time anyway on such devices, so it's less important to be constantly verifying the data integrity. Also, the journalling is, in effect, "overhead", and these types of media, especially floppy diskettes, are so limited that the extra space consumption becomes obvious and perhaps annoying. You don't notice it on a hard disk drive.