drive spins normally, DR pgms do not work.

[Folkert Rienstra]

Still pig ignorant drivel.

Depends on what fault the drive has whether forensic cloning will kill
the drive with a fault.

Thanks Rod, for confirming what I said, using different words.

It's when a drive has bad sectors that were not caused from a drive
fault (logical bad sectors) that the drive won't be dying.
Many physically bad sectors are likely caused by contaminated heads
and that may very well snowball the drive into dying.

Further attempts at a troll by someone not even smart enough
to setup his newsclient properly flushed where it belongs.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

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.

Thanks for telling us that the cloning wasn't actually necessary in those cases.
Overwriting the bad sectors would have accomplished the same at no extra cost.

No of course not fool.

Ahh, the namecalling is back again. I just knew it wouldn't last.

However you will get all readable data at least.

So does overwriting the bad sectors at no cost at all.

[...]
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.

And so it will on the source after the bad sectors have been neutralized.

You're missing that point over and over again.

Nope. You are deliberately harping that point in order to pocket peoples
money when the same effect can be obtained for free with overwriting
the bad sectors on the source.

The only reason for cloning a drive is to provide a backup for the case
a filesystem repair goes awfully wrong and for the case that the disk is
going to die before it can be repaired and the data copied and needs
emergency cloning. Yours and Netivs are not suited for the latter.

I wonder if that could be considered a talent ...

Your constant posturing? Yup.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

<edited at server demand>

By editing, did you mean the complete shambles that you made of the re-
maining quoted text? And what has that got to do with '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?

Both those apps won't help for logical bad sectors (i.e. bad sectors that
are perfectly readable except for that the recorded and calculated ECC
don't match).

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).

If it can be accomplished on the clone then it can be accomplished
on the source too, unless the source is out of spares, which is unlikely.
You can write over the bad sectors and that will make the source disk
similar to the cloned copy.

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

Nope, it will be fully overwritten.

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

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".

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.

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.

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 ...

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

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;

Nope:
(SFF8035r2)
"Implementation Philosophy

The intent of S.M.A.R.T. (Self-Monitoring, Analysis and Reporting Technology) is to protect user data
and minimize the likelihood of unscheduled system downtime that may be caused by predictable
degradation and/or fault of the device. By monitoring and storing critical performance and calibration
parameters, S.M.A.R.T. devices attempt to predict the likelihood of near-term degradation or fault
condition. Providing the host system the knowledge of a negative reliability condition allows the host
system to warn the user of the impending risk of data loss and advise the user of appropriate action."

Nothing anywhere near '24 hours in advance warning'. You made that up, as you do so many.

in that perspective I'd say yes, replace the disk. However SMART is known for
sometimes producing false alerts.

Nope. The alerts are based on the rate of deterioration continuing.
If it doesn't, it's not SMART's fault. And it is not SMART that is issuing
the message, it is the program monitoring the SMART interrupts and tables
that do the communicating to the user that will be at fault in such case.

The attributes I consider real indicative regarding prediction of
disk failures right now are the ones that describe

Grown Defects,

= Reallocated_Sector_Count, pre-failure

Head Seek Errors and

= Seek_Error_Rate, end_of_life

ECC corrected data.

= Hardware_ECC_Recovered, end_of_life

Anyway, if the disk is still under warranty
the manufacturer will prolly replace the disk.


If most of the data was already salvaged then there's no point right now.

In which case there never was a point in doing it at all.

I was more talking in general.

Not according to Netiv, you weren't.

Also, are you sure it's bad sectors that causes the read problems?

As if there is any other cause.

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.

Because it couldn't be read.
Because that's the only error a harddrive can tell.

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

Thanks for explaining the real reason: PARANOIA !

and if you can not explain the dataloss, clone the disk.

Better to be safe than sorry.

Or be sorry when you could have been safe.

- 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,

Which can be remedied otherwise.

they can now 'concentrate' on reconstructing a virtual file system.

Same as with the causes removed from the source.

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


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

Which means that the boot data must have copied correctly and that means
that the responsible data most likely was reassigned to a spare sector on the
source as well, also making the source bootable again.

 

[Rod Speed]

Both those apps won't help for logical bad sectors
(i.e. bad sectors that are perfectly readable except
for that the recorded and calculated ECC don't match).

Pity about the rest.

You dont even know he has any 'logical bad sectors'

If it can be accomplished on the clone then it can be accomplished
on the source too, unless the source is out of spares, which is unlikely.

Depends entirely on whether the source has a fault or not.

You can write over the bad sectors and that will
make the source disk similar to the cloned copy.

Not if its got a fault and it looks like it has.

Nope, it will be fully overwritten.

Completely clueless. Not if the clone is bigger than the original.

Not wiping the target first will see decent recovery
software attempt to recover the shit thats in the
sectors that werent on the source, stupid.

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

>
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".


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.

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.

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 ...

 

[Rod Speed]

Thanks Rod, for confirming what I said, using different words.

More of your flagrant dishonesty. Thats nothing like
what you originally pig ignorantly claimed at the top.

With some faults the time spent cloning is completely
irrelevant to the question of when it will become unusable.

It's when a drive has bad sectors that were not caused from
a drive fault (logical bad sectors) that the drive won't be dying.

Pity you made such a spectacular fool of yourself
when you claimed that cloning would kill the drive.

Many physically bad sectors are likely caused by contaminated heads

Pity about the other faults that arent 'physically bad sectors'

and that may very well snowball the drive into dying.

So it makes sense to decide FIRST whether
that is the fault the drive has, before cloning it.

Yes, a drive with THAT fault is better handled in a clean room.

<reams of your puerile trollshit flushed where it belongs>

 

[Joep]

Nope:
(SFF8035r2)
"Implementation Philosophy

The intent of S.M.A.R.T. (Self-Monitoring, Analysis and Reporting

Technology) is to protect user data

and minimize the likelihood of unscheduled system downtime that may be caused by predictable
degradation and/or fault of the device. By monitoring and storing critical performance and calibration
parameters, S.M.A.R.T. devices attempt to predict the likelihood of near-term degradation or fault
condition. Providing the host system the knowledge of a negative

reliability condition allows the host

system to warn the user of the impending risk of data loss and advise the user of appropriate action."

Nothing anywhere near '24 hours in advance warning'. You made that up, as

you do so many.

Maybe not in the specs for whatever reason (legal stuff maybe - yes, this is
a guess). The 24 hours is a quote from people actively invloved in SMART
development. You will of course dispute that but I do not care.

Nope. The alerts are based on the rate of deterioration continuing.
If it doesn't, it's not SMART's fault. And it is not SMART that is issuing
the message, it is the program monitoring the SMART interrupts and tables
that do the communicating to the user that will be at fault in such case.

Yes, the program is the messenger, that's all. It's the SMART specification
which determines under what conditions an alert to the user should be issued
and it even specifies in exact wordings what that message should be. False
positives, being SMART prediction failure while the disk if fine. False
positives, being disks returned to the manufacturer due to SMART alerts
while no problems can be found (about 20% of returns after SMART warnings).

Again, you think you know it all while you continue to proof lack of
practical knowledge.

= Reallocated_Sector_Count, pre-failure


= Seek_Error_Rate, end_of_life


= Hardware_ECC_Recovered, end_of_life

Yeah, what about that? Is there a point in you rephrasing that?

now.

In which case there never was a point in doing it at all.


Not according to Netiv, you weren't.

Zvi quoted me right. In general under those circumstances my advise is to
clone the disk. What's up with you, you can't even read?

"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." "

As if there is any other cause.

Indeed there is.

Because it couldn't be read.

Yes, that's true smart pants, it couldn't been read.

Because that's the only error a harddrive can tell.

That's bull, I have no other words for that.

Thanks for explaining the real reason: PARANOIA !

You can continue making a fool of yourself, it is so obvious (not to you but
that does not qualify) that I am not referring to paranioa in the sense of a
mental disorder. It seems you are unable to grasp even the simplest things,
anyone can read what I meant by that: better be safe than sorry.

Or be sorry when you could have been safe.
Sigh



Which can be remedied otherwise.

Not if sectors can't be reallocated.

Same as with the causes removed from the source.

If you can reallocate sectors

Which means that the boot data must have copied correctly and that means
that the responsible data most likely was reassigned to a spare sector on the
source as well, also making the source bootable again.

Which was not the case, the source could not be booted from after the clone.
This is what I mean by your total lack of experience. You assume and assume,
thinking you're really smart, but in r.l. things work differently.

 

[Joep]

Thanks for telling us that the cloning wasn't actually necessary in those

cases.

Oh? Thank you for showing us that you really haven't got a clue what you're
talking about.

Overwriting the bad sectors would have accomplished the same at no extra

cost.

If sectors can be reallocated. Cloning can be done without extra cost as
well.

Ahh, the namecalling is back again. I just knew it wouldn't last.

Folkert, that ain't name calling. Fool is a term that actually suits you.

And so it will on the source after the bad sectors have been neutralized.

Ah, you invented a new technical term, kewl.

Nope. You are deliberately harping that point in order to pocket peoples
money when the same effect can be obtained for free with overwriting
the bad sectors on the source.

I am repeating that point because it's the wise thing to do.

The only reason for cloning a drive is to provide a backup for the case
a filesystem repair goes awfully wrong and for the case that the disk is
going to die before it can be repaired and the data copied and needs
emergency cloning. Yours and Netivs are not suited for the latter.

Thank you confirming and agreeing on 2 out of 3 reasons I gave in favor of
cloning. Hundreds of cases actually prove you wrong about the latter.

Your constant posturing? Yup.

Bad snipping, cheap. I am glad you had the oportunity to use your favorite
word again. Still accusing people of posturing doesn't support your case.

 

[Joep]

Further attempts at a troll by someone not even smart enough
to setup his newsclient properly flushed where it belongs.

OMG you're such a clown, there he is with that stupid newsclient remark
again. As always when runs out of answers. Posturing accusations and the
newsclient setup ... how pathetic.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Oh? Thank you for showing us that you really haven't got a clue what you're
talking about.

And who do you think you'll fool with that.

If sectors can be reallocated.

Of course they can. If not the drive is virtually dead since there are
literally tens of thousands of spares and they all have to be used up.
That is FAILURE of a massive scale.

Cloning can be done without extra cost as well.

Yup, but not with DiskPatch.
You even need to shell out extra for the Pro version.
And you have to find an alternative that allows for read errors.

Folkert, that ain't name calling. Fool is a term that actually suits you.

To the part where I actually take you seriously, sure, why not.

Ah, you invented a new technical term, kewl.

Nah, you clearly have that backwards.
http://www.google.com/search?source...GLD,GGLD:2004-43,GGLD:en&q=define:neutralized

I am repeating that point because it's the wise thing to do.

Which is now the third or fourth explanation? I kinda lost track.

Thank you confirming and agreeing on 2 out of 3 reasons I gave

Later. You keep changing them whenever it suits you.

in favor of cloning.

Emergency cloning, which yours and Netivs don't do.

Hundreds of cases actually prove you wrong about the latter.

No, it proves that there was no emergency in those cases at all.
If there was then the drives would have died afterwards and
you have done your level best to contradict that point.

Bad snipping, cheap.

Bad posturing, Joepie. There was no snip.

I am glad you had the opportunity to use your favorite word again.

Hey, if you have a better word for that kind of behavior.

Still accusing people of posturing doesn't support your case.

More of your posturing to support yours does.
Sure Joepie, sure. If you say so.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

OMG you're such a clown, there he is with that stupid newsclient remark
again. As always when runs out of answers. Posturing accusations and the
newsclient setup ... how pathetic.

So it's your contention then that he's doing that on purpose.
Right, that is so much better.

 

[Joep]

those cases.


And who do you think you'll fool with that.

Many will prolly know they're not fooled, and know that you're the fool. The
sad thing is you're not seeing you're making a fool out of yerself.

Of course they can. If not the drive is virtually dead since there are
literally tens of thousands of spares and they all have to be used up.

Yes, seen that happen. As I said before, disks being hard to read isn't
perse caused by errors you can map out.

That is FAILURE of a massive scale.
Indeed


Yup, but not with DiskPatch.

No, that's no public secret. Try telling something new.

You even need to shell out extra for the Pro version.
And you have to find an alternative that allows for read errors.

Which is easy.

Which is now the third or fourth explanation? I kinda lost track.

The explanation is pretty consistent only your very troubled mind fails to
see that.

Later. You keep changing them whenever it suits you.

Nope, you do, because you have no case/clue. You're a troll child nothing
more, nothing less.

Emergency cloning, which yours and Netivs don't do.

Well, first of all you made up emergency cloning, whatever it is.

No, it proves that there was no emergency in those cases at all.

Yes, there was. You weren't there were you?

If there was then the drives would have died afterwards and

Well, some actually did, for others the possibility a catastrophic failure
could not be excluded, so you clone them instead of foolishly trying to
write to the disk as you suggest.

you have done your level best to contradict that point.
Where?


Bad posturing, Joepie. There was no snip.

Yes, there was four-eyes.

Hey, if you have a better word for that kind of behavior.

It only illustrates you have no real arguments. Keep doing it.

 

[Joep]

So it's your contention then that he's doing that on purpose.
Right, that is so much better.

You didn't fool anyone with that, You're the pc.hardware.storage group
clown, clown.

 

[Mark M]

On Mon 11 Jul 2005 09:29:21, Joep wrote:

You didn't fool anyone with that, You're the pc.hardware.storage
group clown, clown.

Steady on, Folkie. I thought that honorific belongs to me? Heh!

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

You didn't fool anyone with that, You're the pc.hardware.storage group
clown, clown.

Bloodpressure Joepie, watch the bloodpressure.
You don't want to go the way Ronnie did.

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

Steady on, Folkie.
LOL.

I thought that honorific belongs to me? Heh!

Well, given the fact that you managed to break OE when MS had finally
mended it, and can't tell me apart from Joepie, you might be right.

 

[Eric Gisin]

Bloodpressure Joepie, watch the bloodpressure.
You don't want to go the way Ronnie did.

If anyone can be compared to Ronnie, it's you Folknuts.
Only net nazis resort to criticizing posting style.

 

[Rod Speed]

If anyone can be compared to Ronnie, it's you Folknuts.
Only net nazis resort to criticizing posting style.

You should have completely mangled the
formatting and put a real bomb under him.

 

[Joep]

Bloodpressure Joepie, watch the bloodpressure.
You don't want to go the way Ronnie did.

My blood pressure is fine thank you

Joepie

 

[Folkert Rienstra]

If anyone can be compared to Ronnie, it's you Folknuts.
Only net nazis resort to criticizing posting style.

Oh, look who's talking, the OberNetNazi himself.
Tried to get people thrown out by their ISP.
Now, how low can you sink, NetKopp Gisin?