- Sep 21, 2021
- 3
- 0
- 10
I bought an external ssd, 2 TB, which comes with several warning to only use exFAT, and will be flakey if we use NTFS or FAT32. But it was already formatted exFAT, so I just jumped into the backup.
It was slow, (4 mbs) but after 3 days it looked like I managed to backup 500 gigs, until a few days later I realized that entire directories were empty and it started throwing up drive errors when I cycled the usb plugging.
So, I decided, perhaps, my mistake was not doing a full format when it arrived to map out bad sectors.
Unfortunately, after 4 days of formatting, disk management on windows 10 was only at 55%, when my son unplugged the usb cord. Now, I am at square 1, and am thinking that maybe windows doesn't do exFat full formats very well. But, my option might be to do a quick format, followed by a chkdsk z: /r on the drive.
It seems to me that a chkdsk /r might run faster, without the need to go into detail micro management of each file system block building.
On the other hand, maybe only a full format will write to the disk management file enough details about the drive to allow it to avoid the bad sectors.
Ah, chkdsk /r just got done in about an hour. It claims it found no problems, which is odd. Maybe the 55% full format already found those error and put them out of service? (I don't like the idea of recovering bad sectors, but do like the idea of permanently ignoring and avoiding the bad sectors. Trying to recover and reuse bad sectors seems insane and unwise.)
Obviously, I don't trust the chkdsk /r since it ran too quickly and found nothing. Obviously, I am not sure why the full format was taking so long --if natural, or because it is a fake flash. Obviously, I don't really trust that if I do copy 600gig to that drive, that it will be
immediately obvious, or possible, to check every file to see if it is really there. Obviously, the data could go poof in a few months. Obviously, I am not looking forward to sending the drive back in the mail, and really need to backup my drive. And so, I am rooting for the drive not to be fake. I am hoping user error.
By the way, the newest sync toy couldn't sync to the drive--either because of the uncorrected errors, or the exFAT, or it is fake. Window explorer pretended to copy to it. More investigation is needed, after this chkdsk, else another full format.
It was slow, (4 mbs) but after 3 days it looked like I managed to backup 500 gigs, until a few days later I realized that entire directories were empty and it started throwing up drive errors when I cycled the usb plugging.
So, I decided, perhaps, my mistake was not doing a full format when it arrived to map out bad sectors.
Unfortunately, after 4 days of formatting, disk management on windows 10 was only at 55%, when my son unplugged the usb cord. Now, I am at square 1, and am thinking that maybe windows doesn't do exFat full formats very well. But, my option might be to do a quick format, followed by a chkdsk z: /r on the drive.
- I strongly suspect this drive is not a real ssd, but rather I bet it is flash memory.
- Flash memory, as I understand it, can have different speeds within the volume (say, a high grade for the first 128 gigs, then a very low grade for the rest). Or worse, I bet some of the flash can be old bad flash or fake flash, which could cause the drive to show up as 1.8 gigs, when in reality, only a tiny bit of that is useable memory. (I suspect they would make at least 100 gigs of the flash real, hoping that most of the buyers wouldn't discover that they had purchased a mostly fake drive, until 30 days had elapsed.)
It seems to me that a chkdsk /r might run faster, without the need to go into detail micro management of each file system block building.
On the other hand, maybe only a full format will write to the disk management file enough details about the drive to allow it to avoid the bad sectors.
Ah, chkdsk /r just got done in about an hour. It claims it found no problems, which is odd. Maybe the 55% full format already found those error and put them out of service? (I don't like the idea of recovering bad sectors, but do like the idea of permanently ignoring and avoiding the bad sectors. Trying to recover and reuse bad sectors seems insane and unwise.)
Obviously, I don't trust the chkdsk /r since it ran too quickly and found nothing. Obviously, I am not sure why the full format was taking so long --if natural, or because it is a fake flash. Obviously, I don't really trust that if I do copy 600gig to that drive, that it will be
immediately obvious, or possible, to check every file to see if it is really there. Obviously, the data could go poof in a few months. Obviously, I am not looking forward to sending the drive back in the mail, and really need to backup my drive. And so, I am rooting for the drive not to be fake. I am hoping user error.
By the way, the newest sync toy couldn't sync to the drive--either because of the uncorrected errors, or the exFAT, or it is fake. Window explorer pretended to copy to it. More investigation is needed, after this chkdsk, else another full format.
. Hiding it in any bodily orifice is out, if that is anyone's suggestion. 
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram