I have been told by separate people to use chkdsk /r and zero fill to repair my hard drive. Since chkdsk saves data and zero fill doesn't, under what cases would someone prefer zero fill over chkdsk?
closed as not constructive by Ƭᴇcʜιᴇ007, Karan, Dave M, 8088, Canadian Luke Apr 8 '13 at 4:46
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
You cannot fix bad sectors. They are physically damaged and no program will solve this.
The chkdsk should detect and mark them so the system will not attempt to use them. It is recommended over a zerofill, because a zerofill will just wipe the disk losing all information, including the bad sectors markers set by chkdsk.
When a disk has bad sectors, this problem has a tendency to grow, because it can either be caused by oxidation or loose particles inside the disk, that will harm other areas and soon the disk will become inoperable. If you want a real solid solution, replace your disk.