drive spins normally, DR pgms do not work.

[Folkert Rienstra]

Thanks for the warning. I know all about Rod.
I see he is exercising more restraint lately

Pun intended, I hope.

 

[Zvi Netiv]

[...]
Scandisk gets to about 95% of the drive and then gives "finding
crosslinked sectors" and then goes back to 85%. This behavior
appears to be a continuous loop as it never gets past 95% for like
10 minutes.

This anomaly suggests that a different BIOS translation mode may have
been used with the drive.

You're right about this, and probably only this. The imbecile tech
(maybe you know him?) probably installed the drive wrongly and forced it
to write incorrectly. Not to worry, I already have a solution that will
work in court. I have most of my data and I will recover my time and
costs in Court.

From the few times that I appeared in court for expert witnessing, I suspect
that you have ruined your evidence already, by your own hands. According to the
best evidence rule procedure, your drive state and content cannot serve anymore
as evidence in court.

Also, from the sequence of events, it's very likely that who set the drive
improperly in the BIOS is you.

[...]

Not preoccupied with anything. I have LOTS of time. In fact, I have a
year to sue, so there is no rush. I made no changes to the drive.

That's what you think. You are obviously wrong.

So you
are saying that scandisk run from windows writes to the drive, changes
it even BEFORE it asks you to fix anything. I rather doubt that.

It's likely that Windows wrote to the drive, even before initiating SCANDISK.
Moreover, I suspect that SCANDISK could reach 95% of the drive without letting
it to fix anything.

The
other DR programs did nothing except start to scan the drive. The drive
has developed no further errors since I've done any of this. And, rest
assured I won't be using your program clonedisk.

In case you have a comprehension problem with the English language, let me
repeat that IMO, there is no point in cloning your drive anymore.

Regards, Zvi

 

[Bob]

Thanks for the warning. I know all about Rod. I see he is exercising
more restraint lately and I did find his information, while cryptic,
useful.

He likes to pontificate in the hope that something will stick once in
a while. Notice that he never offers any explanation or other
supporting comments to back up his claims. When someone later
questions him, he dumps all over them like a monkey throwing crap at
spectators.

What a truly sick person he is. Caught between narcissistic and
anal-retentive stages of psycho-sexual development, he doesn't know
whether to suck his own thumb or his boyfriend's dick. But then this
is to be expected of a Leftist Queer Unarmed Wimp Peasant from Oz.

--

Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

"The possession of arms is the distinction
between a free man and a slave."
-- Andrew Fletcher, Discourse on Government (1695)

 

[Bob]

Some pathetically senile silly old redneck fart desperately cowering behind
Bob <[email protected]> desperately attempted to
bullshit its way out of its predicament in message
and fooled absolutely no one at all. As always.

Yet another datum point confirming my claim that Troll Rodboy is a
robot. He says the same exact thing over and over and over...


--

Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

"The possession of arms is the distinction
between a free man and a slave."
-- Andrew Fletcher, Discourse on Government (1695)

 

[Rod Speed]

Some pathological liar/pathetically senile silly
old redneck fart, desperately cowering behind

He likes to pontificate in the hope that something will stick once in a while.

Sticks a hell of a lot more often than your pathetically senile silly shit does.

Notice that he never offers any explanation or
other supporting comments to back up his claims.

Obvious lie. I posted the urls that prove your claim that it isnt possible to
network two Win2k Pro systems without fixed IPs is just plain wrong, liar.

<reams of its puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it
belongs>

 

[Rod Speed]

Yet another datum point

Wota ****ing wanker...

confirming my claim that Troll Rodboy is a robot.
He says the same exact thing over and over and over...

Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh redneck ?

Talk about a pathetically senile silly old fart.

 

[HaHaHoHoHeeHee]

[...]
Scandisk gets to about 95% of the drive and then gives
"finding crosslinked sectors" and then goes back to 85%.
This behavior appears to be a continuous loop as it never
gets past 95% for like 10 minutes.

This anomaly suggests that a different BIOS translation mode
may have been used with the drive.

You're right about this, and probably only this. The imbecile
tech (maybe you know him?) probably installed the drive wrongly
and forced it to write incorrectly. Not to worry, I already
have a solution that will work in court. I have most of my data
and I will recover my time and costs in Court.

From the few times that I appeared in court for expert
witnessing, I suspect that you have ruined your evidence
already, by your own hands. According to the best evidence rule
procedure, your drive state and content cannot serve anymore as
evidence in court.

Haha, ur funny. I used to think u really knew something about
drives, but now I see your just a sales hack for Clonedisk/Resq.
Mark my words this guy will pay.

Also, from the sequence of events, it's very likely that who set
the drive improperly in the BIOS is you.

Tell your incompetent tech friend to get ready for some pay back.
I underestimated his stupidity; made the mistake of assuming he
KNEW what the hell he was doing, since he has his own shop. To
others reading this do NOT trust comp. shops out there. They are
worse than auto mechanics; like most of the crap DR programs out
there will feed you bs about what they can do when the mostly
can't find their asses with their hands in the dark with a
flashlight.

[...]

Not preoccupied with anything. I have LOTS of time. In fact, I
have a year to sue, so there is no rush. I made no changes to
the drive.

That's what you think. You are obviously wrong.

Statute time limitations are min. one year here and in some cases
3 yrs. Already checked with an attorney on this.

It's likely that Windows wrote to the drive, even before
initiating SCANDISK. Moreover, I suspect that SCANDISK could
reach 95% of the drive without letting it to fix anything.


In case you have a comprehension problem with the English
language, let me repeat that IMO, there is no point in cloning
your drive anymore.

Since your mostly here to hype another inadequate program, kindly
bugger off. I don't need your advice. Capiche?

 

[HaHaHoHoHeeHee]

message


Pun intended, I hope.

Haha, Fokert, did not even notice that till you pointed it out.

Thanks for your other post on ECC and the rest. I am learning
slowly. I was wondering how long it would be before the thread
turned into several flame wars, which seems to be the habit in
this group, haha. Not that I'm adverse to a few good flame wars.

I've researched many of the programs and have yet to find one that
stands above the others. Wrote S.G. on spinrite and he cannot
offer a reasonable explaination/solution to the long recover times
with that program. Nobody seems to have come up with a really good
solution to getting the stuff off of "bad sector" drives. (don't
have time to become a math whiz worst subject) to manually analyze
the drive and it seems that those who try this are always arguing
about how to do it anyways. Have you looked at the web page for
Virtualabs. I wonder if they are any good; I bet they are
expensive-novel approach though.

 

[Zvi Netiv]

Mark my words this guy will pay.

Mark mine: You'll be wasting money on lawyers, and lose the case if stupid
enough to take it to court.

Tell your incompetent tech friend to get ready for some pay back.
I underestimated his stupidity;

How about your own?

[...]

Statute time limitations are min. one year here and in some cases
3 yrs. Already checked with an attorney on this.

I wasn't referring to the time limitation but failing to prove that the damage
wasn't self-inflicted by your own doing.

[...]

Since your mostly here to hype another inadequate program, kindly
bugger off. I don't need your advice. Capiche?

You are wrong on both counts. I am here for the benefit of users that may have
a similar problem to yours.

Regards, Zvi

 

[Joep]

Nope.

It's an Error Correction Code check that is performed on and recorded
with the sector data.
On a read an ECC is calculated for the data and compared with the ECC
that is recorded with the data. If they don't match or if the ECC can't
correct the data such that it returns the same ECC, then the sector is
considered bad.


They do? Drives already do it themselves. What programs can do is
repeat a read themselves if it doesn't succeed a first time.

Note that read failures aren't caused by 'bad sectors' by definition. We
often see disks that aren't easily read for other reasons in which case
re-reads are often succesfull.

Doesn't surprise me one bit. The author has a habit of blowing up if you
make suggestions, taking it as criticism. That obviously limits that programs
ability to get better.

Mixed reviews can be better explained than by what you suggest here.
Obviously DiskPatch will not always be able to clone a disk, often it can
though. So this easily explains mixed reviews, some were able to clone the
disk, some were not. Note that it is very unlikely that if DiskPatch can not
clone a disk, other programs can.

It is true that specifically your (F. Rienstra) critisisms and/or
suggestions are not welcome because of your 'style' or better said, lack of
it. But it is a mistake to assume that suggestions made by others aren't
carefully considered. I also like to add that cisticism or suggestions
aren't valid or good suggestions by definition.

Does it do reads without ECC checks (Read Long)?
I.E. no retries at all, not even by the drive itself?

Oh well, here is an excerpt from the online manual:

" In case of bad sectors, often repairs can not be made on the original (bad) disk.
" If bad sectors exist in areas on the disk that contain disk structures, repairing
" these structures is going to be impossible

" because writing to bad sectors is impossible.

That is wrong.

There are conditions that will prevent a sector from being written to.

" Cloning the bad disk to a good disk will give you a much better chance of repairing
" those damaged structures.

Maybe so but not for that reason.

Yes, for that reason. If a sector can not be written to it is obviously
impossible to write correct data to the sector.

" Be prepared for the fact that cloning a bad disk to a good disk can take a
" considerable amount of time.

And kiss the disk goodbye for that reason alone.

Well, cloning is often the last thing to try if a disk can not be written
to, if file recovery tools stall, and if expensive commercial data recovery
isn't an option. To get the data you have to at least try to read the disk.
Reading all sectors does take time, it is as simple as that. How would you
try to recover the data while not reading the disk at all?

Anyway, many people have been using and have been able to recover intact
data once they cloned the disk with DiskPatch with file recovery software,
where the file recovery software would 'stall' on the original disk due to
read problems. You make it sound as if cloning a disk will by definition
kill the original disk, let me tell you from real-life experience that, that
ain't so.

--
Joep

D I Y D a t a R e c o v e r y . N L - Data & Disaster Recovery Tools

http://www.diydatarecovery.nl
http://www.diydatarecovery.com

 

[Zvi Netiv]

[...]

" Be prepared for the fact that cloning a bad disk to a good disk can take a
" considerable amount of time.

And kiss the disk goodbye for that reason alone.

Clueless and bad advice.

Well, cloning is often the last thing to try if a disk can not be written
to, if file recovery tools stall, and if expensive commercial data recovery
isn't an option.

Cloning is the first thing to try if a disk starts showing bad sectors, the OS
fails to load, especially if followed by an error message about disk read/write
problems, or if reading the drive fails and the PC hangs on disk retries.

[...]

You make it sound as if cloning a disk will by definition
kill the original disk, let me tell you from real-life experience that, that
ain't so.

Ignore the fool, his head is too full of theories and his own s**t. If cloning
wouldn't work, then file recovery is already hopeless.

Regards, Zvi

 

[J. Clarke]

[...]

" Be prepared for the fact that cloning a bad disk to a good disk can
take a " considerable amount of time.

And kiss the disk goodbye for that reason alone.

Clueless and bad advice.

Well, cloning is often the last thing to try if a disk can not be written
to, if file recovery tools stall, and if expensive commercial data
recovery isn't an option.

Cloning is the first thing to try if a disk starts showing bad sectors,
the OS fails to load, especially if followed by an error message about
disk read/write problems, or if reading the drive fails and the PC hangs
on disk retries.

[...]

You make it sound as if cloning a disk will by definition
kill the original disk, let me tell you from real-life experience that,
that ain't so.

Ignore the fool, his head is too full of theories and his own s**t. If
cloning wouldn't work, then file recovery is already hopeless.

Depends on what's wrong with the drive. If it's an electronic problem then
attempting a clone is fairly safe. If it's a physical crash then there is
probably some loose material inside the capsule and possibly a physically
damaged head. If that is the case then attempting to clone the drive just
gives that loose material time to damage the other head and if there is a
damaged head, sweeping it across the surface of the platter once will
pretty much destroy the contents of that platter. And until the drive is
opened in a clean room and physically inspected there's no way to be sure
that that is not the problem.

And before you say "it can't happen", I've seen it twice so far, and I don't
count myself as having particularly vast exposure to such things.

 

[Zvi Netiv]

"Folkert Rienstra" <[email protected]> wrote in message

[...]

" Be prepared for the fact that cloning a bad disk to a good disk can
take a " considerable amount of time.

And kiss the disk goodbye for that reason alone.

Clueless bad advice.

Well, cloning is often the last thing to try if a disk can not be written
to, if file recovery tools stall, and if expensive commercial data
recovery isn't an option.

Cloning is the first thing to try if a disk starts showing bad sectors,
the OS fails to load, especially if followed by an error message about
disk read/write problems, or if reading the drive fails and the PC hangs
on disk retries.

[...]

You make it sound as if cloning a disk will by definition
kill the original disk, let me tell you from real-life experience that,
that ain't so.

Ignore the fool, his head is too full of theories and his own s**t. If
cloning wouldn't work, then file recovery is already hopeless.

Depends on what's wrong with the drive. If it's an electronic problem then
attempting a clone is fairly safe.

Joep already restricted the scope of this discussion to "a disk can not be
written to, if file recovery tools stall, and if expensive commercial data
recovery isn't an option." I further limited my advice to the conditions
described in the fifth paragraph from top.

If it's a physical crash then there is
probably some loose material inside the capsule and possibly a physically
damaged head. If that is the case then attempting to clone the drive just
gives that loose material time to damage the other head and if there is a
damaged head, sweeping it across the surface of the platter once will
pretty much destroy the contents of that platter.

True, but out of context under the limitations described above.

And until the drive is
opened in a clean room and physically inspected there's no way to be sure
that that is not the problem.

Again, we aren't discussing a general case but specific ones. As Joep
specified, above: "and if expensive commercial data recovery isn't an option."

Regards, Zvi

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

[...]

" Be prepared for the fact that cloning a bad disk to a good disk can take a
" considerable amount of time.

And kiss the disk goodbye for that reason alone.

Clueless and bad advice.

What advice. It was short for
"And you can probably kiss the disk goodbye because of the considerable retry
operations responsible for that 'considerable amount of time' killing the drive off".

Cloning is the first thing to try if a disk starts showing bad sectors, the OS
fails to load, especially if followed by an error message about disk read/write
problems, or if reading the drive fails and the PC hangs on disk retries.

Ahh, and it will magically stop doing that, trembling in it's boots, if you fire-up
the cloning program to copy the data off.

[...]

You make it sound as if cloning a disk will by definition kill the original disk,
let me tell you from real-life experience that, that ain't so.

Ignore the fool, his head is too full of theories and his own s**t.

If cloning wouldn't work, then file recovery is already hopeless.

Nonsense. If cloning isn't going to work, to do the repairs offline,
then the repairs need to be done online in the fastest possible way
after which the user data may be copied.
That needs specialized programs that can read the drive's raw data.
Unfortunately not all drives may support that.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Note that read failures aren't caused by 'bad sectors' by definition.

Pretty much so.

We often see disks that aren't easily read for other reasons

The reason probably being that the OS gives up because it is not it's
task to read information at all cost.

in which case re-reads are often successful.

Because the recovery apps are more rigorous in trying to get the data,
because that's what they do.

Mixed reviews can be better explained than by what you suggest here.

Obviously DiskPatch will not always be able to clone a disk,

Obviously? By design 'obviously' or by observation in the field 'obviously'?

often it can though.

'Often' shouldn't be good enough.

So this easily explains mixed reviews, some were able to clone the disk, some

were not.

Note that it is very unlikely that if DiskPatch can not clone a disk, other
programs can.

How so? Does DiskPatch copy without the drive checking the ECCs?
If not then it is very likely that there can be programs that clone a disk
'successfully' in the same time as if it were spotless.

It is true that specifically your (F. Rienstra) critisisms and/or
suggestions are not welcome because of your 'style' or better said, lack of it.

I once praised you for researching the Read long feature and you
completely flew off the handle, resorting to name calling and all that.
You are a hothead that is suffering from low self esteem.

But it is a mistake to assume that suggestions made by others aren't
carefully considered.

What others.

I also like to add that cisticism or suggestions
aren't valid or good suggestions by definition.

It's often the opposite that you appear to think of in the first place.
And after you realize that you completely mistook what was said it
is often too late for you to apologize and you let it linger on.

There are conditions that will prevent a sector from being written to.

Not on current harddrives, not on still functioning ones.
And that is a far cry from "because writing to bad sectors is *impossible*".

Yes, for that reason. If a sector can not be written to

Not on recent harddrives. Sector reallocation works on writes as well as on reads.

it is obviously impossible to write correct data to the sector.

So no. The sector gets replaced.

Well, cloning is often the last thing to try if a disk can not be written to,

That is a severe limitation. Like a drive with defective write amps or heads.

if file recovery tools stall,

Ok, if *nothing else* will do. Usually there is something else that will.
It usually is also possible to remove the cause of the stall, once you make
the decision to write off data that isn't likely to be recovered anymore,
not even by cloning. In such case the stall is removed by overwriting the
sector(s) that cause the stall.

and if expensive commercial data recovery isn't an option.

To get the data you have to at least try to read the disk.

If it is dying you want to get to the *data* quick, without delays.
You want to have it do it in as little time possible, meaning:
no copying of sectors that have no data in them
not trying to get the drive get to the data at all cost.

Reading all sectors does take time, it is as simple as that.

No, it is not as simple as that. There are ways of reading the data
without the drive doing retries and check the data on the host instead.

How would you try to recover the data while not reading the disk at all?

That is a silly question, and you know it. This has been discussed before.

Anyway, many people have been using and have been able to recover intact
data once they cloned the disk with DiskPatch with file recovery software,
where the file recovery software would 'stall' on the original disk due to
read problems.

Very likely as there are many ways leading to Rome.

You make it sound as if cloning a disk will by definition kill the original disk,

Because this procedure is often recommended as an emergency procedure for
disks that are dying. Disk that are dying need to be cloned in the fastest and
most smartest way. Most cloning programs however are a far cry from that.

 

[Joep]

Pretty much so.
No.


The reason probably being that the OS gives up because it is not it's
task to read information at all cost.

No. I mean, we determined the other reasons, not the OS.

Because the recovery apps are more rigorous in trying to get the data,
because that's what they do.
Yes.



Obviously? By design 'obviously' or by observation in the field

'obviously'?

As in 'obviously a doctor can not cure every patient'. Not because he
incompetent, but simply because some things can't be done.

'Often' shouldn't be good enough.

Often is as good as it will ever get.

some
were not.


How so? Does DiskPatch copy without the drive checking the ECCs?
If not then it is very likely that there can be programs that clone a disk
'successfully' in the same time as if it were spotless.

Field experience.

of it.

I once praised you for researching the Read long feature and you
completely flew off the handle, resorting to name calling and all that.
You are a hothead that is suffering from low self esteem.

Nice try. Your problem is that your comments and suggestions are often
'misunderstood', not just by me. You make it sound as if you are a very
experienced hard disk, partition table and what not guru while it appears
most of your answers are quotes from reading various specs. In real life
it's not the specs that make the difference but experience. And whit
experience I do not mean a few isolated cases you may have handled at home,
but thousands of them.

What others.

Others than F. Rienstra. We communicate with a lot of people, not just you.
In fact too many to all mention them here. So, your question 'what others'
will not be answered more specifically.

It's often the opposite that you appear to think of in the first place.

Often suggestions are not good suggestions indeed. Good suggestions are
rare.

And after you realize that you completely mistook what was said it
is often too late for you to apologize and you let it linger on.

Incorrect. I do not have a problem with appologies at all.

Not on current harddrives, not on still functioning ones.
And that is a far cry from "because writing to bad sectors is

*impossible*".

Disk's do not have unlimited reallocation capacity. When there are no
sectors to spare, you can't write to the disk. Before you come up with smart
ass remarks, yes, field experience, we saw that happen.

Not on recent harddrives. Sector reallocation works on writes as well as

on reads.

Yes I know, as long as there are sectors to spare.

So no. The sector gets replaced.

If spares are available.

written to,

That is a severe limitation. Like a drive with defective write amps or

heads.

You're missing the most obvious reason again.

Ok, if *nothing else* will do. Usually there is something else that will.

Often file recovery tools stall when there's disk read issues. Field
experience.

It usually is also possible to remove the cause of the stall,

Well, it isn't.

once you make
the decision to write off data that isn't likely to be recovered anymore,
not even by cloning. In such case the stall is removed by overwriting the
sector(s) that cause the stall.

If there are sectors to spare. If you think you've seen it all, you're
wrong. But you are correct, in case of just a few uncorrectable ECC errors,
we often overwite them, you can run a read/write surface scan with DP or
other tools to accopmplish this. An uncorrectable ECC error does not mean
the sector is bad, it can be simply a matter of data corruption.

If it is dying you want to get to the *data* quick, without delays.
You want to have it do it in as little time possible, meaning:

Clone the disk.

no copying of sectors that have no data in them
not trying to get the drive get to the data at all cost.

Yes, the point was that almost all commercially available file recovery
tools do not handle read errors very well, and that this prevents what you
just suggested. BTW, the with DiskPatch you can easily limit areas you want
to transfer to a different disk.

No, it is not as simple as that. There are ways of reading the data
without the drive doing retries and check the data on the host instead.

It still takes time reading the entire disk when cloning. Most time is often
not due to the unreadable sectors but simply because the contents of a lot
of sectors have to be transfered. This takes time (what's so difficult to
understand about this).

That is a silly question, and you know it.

No, it's not a silly question, it seemed what you suggested.

This has been discussed before.

What exactly?

Very likely as there are many ways leading to Rome.

Point is that for those people there aren't that many roads left.

original disk,

Because this procedure is often recommended as an emergency procedure for
disks that are dying. Disk that are dying need to be cloned in the fastest and
most smartest way. Most cloning programs however are a far cry from that.

DiskPatch has been used very often to do just that and we've never lost a
disk during the clone.

--
Joep

D I Y D a t a R e c o v e r y . N L - Data & Disaster Recovery Tools

http://www.diydatarecovery.nl
http://www.diydatarecovery.com

 

[Joep]

What advice. It was short for
"And you can probably kiss the disk goodbye because of the considerable retry
operations responsible for that 'considerable amount of time' killing the drive off".

From experience I can tell cloning hardly ever kills the disk. Our customers
have cloned probably thousands of disks with DiskPatch and we've never heard
of a disk dying during the clone operation.

retries.

Ahh, and it will magically stop doing that, trembling in it's boots, if you fire-up
the cloning program to copy the data off.

No of course not fool. However you will get all readable data at least.

[...]

You make it sound as if cloning a disk will by definition kill the original disk,
let me tell you from real-life experience that, that ain't so.

Ignore the fool, his head is too full of theories and his own s**t.

If cloning wouldn't work, then file recovery is already hopeless.

Nonsense. If cloning isn't going to work, to do the repairs offline,
then the repairs need to be done online in the fastest possible way
after which the user data may be copied.

Again, from experience; if cloning doesn't work neither will commercially
available file recovery software, and I guess this is what Zvi is referring
to. On the other hand, if commercially available data recovery fails/stalls
due to read problems, often intact data can be recovered with that same
software after you have cloned the disk, from the clone. You're missing that
point over and over again. I wonder if that could be considered a talent ...

 

[HaHaHoHoHeeHee]

<edited at server demand>

Joep, I have a disk from which I have somewhat current cd-rw backups
of the data (not a clone). DR programs hang on unreadable/bad sector
errors. I have gotten most of the most current data off of it, sans
the several files which gives disk access errors. Scandisk loops and
WD DLG reports Smart errors (replace drive?). No noise.

What point if any, in this situation would cloning do, since DP
cannot recover data from bad sectors and skips them? Why not go to
something like Spinrite or Hdd Regenerator, since I already have most
of the data? The only thing I can think of that would be accomplished
by a clone would be to get the boot capability of the disk back on
another clean disk (maybe; maybe it already will boot, haven't
tried).

Also, does it make a difference if the clean target disk in the clone
is formatted (fat32 for both target and source) or not. Is there any
real advantage to writing zeros to the target disk prior to cloning,
if the target is already empty and formatted?

What advice. It was short for
"And you can probably kiss the disk goodbye because of the
considerable retry
operations responsible for that 'considerable amount of time'
killing the drive off".

From experience I can tell cloning hardly ever kills the disk.
Our customers have cloned probably thousands of disks with
DiskPatch and we've never heard of a disk dying during the clone
operation.

retries.

Ahh, and it will magically stop doing that, trembling in it's
boots, if you fire-up
the cloning program to copy the data off.

No of course not fool. However you will get all readable data at
least.

[...]
You make it sound as if cloning a disk will by definition
kill the original disk,
let me tell you from real-life experience that, that ain't
so.

Ignore the fool, his head is too full of theories and his own
s**t.

If cloning wouldn't work, then file recovery is already
hopeless.

Nonsense. If cloning isn't going to work, to do the repairs
offline, then the repairs need to be done online in the fastest
possible way after which the user data may be copied.

Again, from experience; if cloning doesn't work neither will
commercially available file recovery software, and I guess this
is what Zvi is referring to. On the other hand, if commercially
available data recovery fails/stalls due to read problems, often
intact data can be recovered with that same software after you
have cloned the disk, from the clone. You're missing that point
over and over again. I wonder if that could be considered a
talent ...

 

[Joep]

<edited at server demand>

Joep, I have a disk from which I have somewhat current cd-rw backups
of the data (not a clone). DR programs hang on unreadable/bad sector
errors. I have gotten most of the most current data off of it, sans
the several files which gives disk access errors. Scandisk loops and
WD DLG reports Smart errors (replace drive?).

Use a tool that shows you the actual SMART attributes, for example SMARTUDM
(http://www.sysinfolab.com/download.htm). Note that SMART was designed to
give you a 24 hours in advance warning; in that perspective I'd say yes,
replace the disk. However SMART is known for sometimes producing false
alerts. The attributes I consider real indicative regarding prediction of
disk failures right now are the ones that describe Grown Defects, Head Seek
Errors and ECC corrected data. Anyway, if the disk is still under warranty
the manufacturer will prolly replace the disk.

No noise.

What point if any, in this situation would cloning do, since DP
cannot recover data from bad sectors and skips them?

If most of the data was already salvaged then there's no point right now. I
was more talking in general. Also, are you sure it's bad sectors that causes
the read problems? Many programs will just tell you that they couldn't read
a sector, but they don't tell you why the sector couldn't be read.

Again, in general there some good reasons for which I suggest cloning for
data recovery purposes:

- you suspect the disk may die soon. Thing is that you never know for sure
when it will die. It's safer to be paranoid about this and if you can not
explain the dataloss, clone the disk. Better to be safe than sorry.
- safety net if you attempt repairs (partition tables, boot sectors)
- it will make allow file recovevery software to run or make it run smoother
when running it on a clone as they do not have to deal with read errors,
they can now 'concentrate' on reconstructing a virtual file system.

Why not go to
something like Spinrite or Hdd Regenerator, since I already have most
of the data?

If you have nothing to lose at this point, I'd say go ahead.

The only thing I can think of that would be accomplished
by a clone would be to get the boot capability of the disk back on
another clean disk (maybe; maybe it already will boot, haven't
tried).

Well, I'd not count on that, however I have indeed seen unbootable disks
become bootable again once they were cloned.

Also, does it make a difference if the clean target disk in the clone
is formatted (fat32 for both target and source) or not.

That's irrelevant when we're talking sector 2 sector cloning.

Is there any
real advantage to writing zeros to the target disk prior to cloning,
if the target is already empty and formatted?

There can be an advantage: assume the target disk being larger, the target
disk will be only partially overwritten. If you'd then scan the disk using
some file recovery or disk repair software the not overwritten original
contents of the target disk may confuse the data recovery software. it's
always recommended or according to some standards required, to wipe the
destination disk if you're cloning a disk for forensic purposes.

 

[Rod Speed]

What advice. It was short for
"And you can probably kiss the disk goodbye because of the considerable retry
operations responsible for that 'considerable amount of time' killing the
drive off".

Still pig ignorant drivel. Depends on what fault the drive
has whether forensic cloning will kill the drive with a fault.

Ahh, and it will magically stop doing that, trembling in it's
boots, if you fire-up the cloning program to copy the data off.

Even you should be able to bullshit your way out of
your predicament better than that pathetic effort.

He's right.

Nonsense. If cloning isn't going to work, to do the repairs
offline, then the repairs need to be done online in the fastest
possible way after which the user data may be copied.

Mindless pig ignorant waffle.

That needs specialized programs that can read the drive's
raw data. Unfortunately not all drives may support that.

Mindless pig ignorant waffle.