I did an "error check" for my C drive and when I restarted my laptop the process began. Mid way through I received that message, and I was wondering

- What is a bad cluster?- What causes it to go bad?- What type of file is it?- What are the repercussions of having this file replaced/go bad?

Thanks for your help guys

A cluster is not a file, but a physical division of the drive's storage space.

Bad clusters don't function correctly and thus can't be read or written to correctly. Looks like Windows was able to recover the affected file and move it somewhere else (physically) on the disk.

You can't fix bad clusters. They're gone for good. But you can partition the hard drive around them so that they're no longer an issue. Unfortunately, oftentimes bad clusters means further hard drive failures are imminent.

::sigh::

Do you know what that file is/does?Is it important?

This is the first time I have seen this, and I usually "error check" once a month or so. How long does it take for my HDD to crash?

If the file was recoved sucessfully then I would'nt worry about it.

Might want to try this if your worried about it: http://www.grc.com/sr/spinrite.htm

sysevent.evt is a "crash log." It's not a critical thing but, as Paul said, even if it was it wouldn't be a big deal since Windows was able to recover it. The crash log is just there for you to examine if you want to find out specifics about a windows crash (not necessarily related to that hard drive failure...could be left over from an old windows crash).

It's hard to say how long the drive has left.

Actually most if not all new drives use a thing called S.M.A.R.T to tell you how long the HD has left.

http://en.wakopedia.org/wiki/S.M.A.R.T.

But all drives with moving parts can fail ANYTIME, Wonder if SSD is any better?

I've heard that it's longevity is quite high, especially when compared to HDD. Many are quoting 10+ years now and much more depending on the situation. In a server environment where a majority of the activity is reading data, the longevity is considerably higher since there is only limitations on write cycles (not that this is a huge issue, more on that in a second). Hardware failure is really a non issue and given that current SSD have error correction, I don't see why one should really expect less than what it is "rated" for. The whole system is really superior by simplicity, no need to spin up/down the platters, no moving heads etc. A lot of the earlier complaints were about the amount of write cycles allowed but what most people didn't realize is that it's rated for that many write cycles to EACH CELL. An efficient controller would spread out the writes across as many cells as possible, virtually eliminating this problem for the majority of peoples use for an SSD.

I'm concerned about the ability to obtain data once one does crash though. So far it's been extremely hard if not right near impossible to recover data off a fried SSD. Most consumers are to ignorant and worry free to back up there data. Although 90% of the time it's not a terribly big deal since they don't have anything extremely important stored on their HDD but when they do, and it crashes, it's usually possible to get the important data back no matter if it was a bad sector/cluster/partition or a hardware failure. Hopefully it will teach some people a lesson.

basically what they said, the computer is pretty much fixing it self.

two years ago my laptop did the same thing, then actually 3 days ago the harddrive finally failed. so now im stuck to the desktop lol.

well anyways, expect your harddrive to go anytime, basically back up all important data, but if you want still use the computer till she drops.

sorry if this doesnt make sense its kinda late here.

Avoid the solid state drives for now; you'll regret if you don't. They have a tendency to lose data.

google Ubuntu and install it on your computer, it works great for harddrives that are failing.

i use it now.

chemao wrote:Avoid the solid state drives for now; you'll regret if you don't. They have a tendency to lose data.

Avoid cheap SS drives...the Intel ones have a lot less issues.

ScorchedNX2K wrote:

chemao wrote:Avoid the solid state drives for now; you'll regret if you don't. They have a tendency to lose data.

Avoid cheap SS drives...the Intel ones have a lot less issues.

There is actually a hybrid drive available now, it has a SSD portion, as well as magnetic platters. It intelligently stores commonly accessed data on the SSD portion for faster access, while keeping more mundane data on the platters. Works well without going completely SSD, cheaper too.

chemao wrote:Avoid the solid state drives for now; you'll regret if you don't. They have a tendency to lose data.

FWIW, I've got five and have had no issues with any of them. Three are OCZ and two are Intel. I believe there were issues when the technology was brand new, but I think nearly all of the drives on the market now are probably ok. The benefit when buying higher priced drives is in the performance. Also, capacity is costly on SSD, so if you need the storage space, SSD is probably not ideal.