info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Need Data Recovery software for failing HDD
5 views
Skip to first unread message
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Sep 29, 2017, 9:22:01 AM9/29/17
to
In message <l7krsctr0410kuv0v...@4ax.com>,
anon...@internet.none writes:
>I have an old computer with two 120gb IDE HDDs. The first drive has 4
>partitions C: thru F:. The second HDD has 3 partitions G: thru I:.
>The computer is running Windows 98 SE. (Yea, I know this is a Windows 7
>newsgroup, but the Win98 group is dead).
Quiet, but not dead, assuming you mean the one I've included.
>
>Anyhow, my G: partition has gone insane. This started when I was backing
>it up, and it refused to copy some files. I ran scandisk and told me
What are you using to backup - just copy, or some utility? Does it stop
when it encounters a problem, or carry on with the remaining files it
_can_ copy? (I use SyncToy, but [a] I don't know if that runs on '98 [b]
I don't know if it carries on after a failure-to-read, though I think it
does.)
>there were 2 bad clusters, but could not fix them. Rather than just
>marking them as BAD, it made the whole HDD go insane.
It may or may not be scandisk that made that happen.
>First it created several folders called DIR0000 DIR0001 etc.
>Then I found several folders missing, but the contents of some of them
>were in these DIR000X folders.
Yes, that's what it does: if it can't read the name of a folder, it
makes one called DIRxxxx, and puts the contents of the unreadable folder
into the new one.
>
>It told me to run the complete (long) version of Scandisk. I did it, and
>after taking hours, it told me there were 2 bad clusters in UNUSED
I'm guessing that the first pass did its moving into rescue folders, so
the bad ones were indeed now in unused space. However, that's just a
guess.
>spaces, and said they could not be fixed.
Well, if they were unfixable the first time, they'd be unfixable the
second. IIRR, the default pass just looks at used space and file
structures, so it's pot luck that the dud sectors were in a part of the
disk where you did have data, and it thus found them. The long version
checks the whole disk, including the parts currently not holding any
data: basically I think for each sector, it copies the data, then does
write and read tests, then puts back the original data. (Moving it to
somewhere else if it detects a problem.)
>
>Rather than just mark them clusters bad, I Then found over half of my
>folders missing. However, in DOS, I can see them, but found I can only
>copy small files, large ones cause ABORT RETRY FAIL.
Does sound as if the drive is decidedly unwell. The symptoms - can see
in DOS but not Windows - sound remarkably like another thread I've read
in the last day or two; I think it was/is in the '98 'group.
>
>This partition is about 50gb, with 23gb used. It's formatted FAT32.
>The entire drive is not bad. H: and I: work fine. Just G: is screwed up.
I wouldn't (as you've said you aren't going to, which is good policy)
rely on the rest of it remaining good, though.
>
>I have not run further tests, which might write to the drive. My goal is
>to retrieve the very important data to another drive. (I only have about
>half of that partition backed up). Once I can save the data, I plan to
>also save the data on the other partitions, and will replace the drive
>with a new one.
(Good.)
>
>What can I use to retrieve the data?
>
>Google told me to download PC Inspector. I tried it, it ran in Win98,
>but everytime I go to G: it errors out.
Does it work on H: and I:, i. e. the other parts of the same drive?
>
>What else is there? I'd prefer free, but will pay a reasonable fee for
>something guaranteed to work.The lost data is around 12gb, but it's
>extremely important. If I must, I will probably have to pay a pro for
>data recovery.
You were backing up - how often do you? [Not that I'm one to talk (-:!]
Also, what is it that is making such important data, that is running
under '98? (Not that '98 is in itself unreliable: it's so simple that
it's probably _more_ reliable. It's just that kit made for it is
probably getting a bit worn by now ...)
>
>Because this is a slave drive, I can plug it into a XP computer if need
>be, but will need some special card or something, because that computer
The motherboard may still have an IDE connector, though. (Are you sure
you're not the same person as the other thread?) SATA-_only_
motherboards, I would say, didn't become _common_ until after the XP era
(I'm not sure they're _that_ common even yet).
>has a SATA drive. I dont know if I am better trying to retrieve the data
>using Win98 or XP????
For a secondary (i. e. not system) drive, I think '98 is less likely to
try to write anything _to_ the drive; conversely, XP might do better,
and there are probably more tools.
>
>I dont have any newer OSs, than XP.
>Win98 is what I use the most, and this W98 computer has all my most
>important data. I only use XP to play videos.
>
On reading that, I've added the XP 'group, as those there might
recommend assorted utilities. This probably shouldn't be on the '7
'group (-:.
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Speed has never killed anyone. Suddenly becoming stationary, that's what gets
you. - Jeremy Clarkson, Top Gear
anon...@internet.none writes:
>I have an old computer with two 120gb IDE HDDs. The first drive has 4
>partitions C: thru F:. The second HDD has 3 partitions G: thru I:.
>The computer is running Windows 98 SE. (Yea, I know this is a Windows 7
>newsgroup, but the Win98 group is dead).
Quiet, but not dead, assuming you mean the one I've included.
>
>Anyhow, my G: partition has gone insane. This started when I was backing
>it up, and it refused to copy some files. I ran scandisk and told me
What are you using to backup - just copy, or some utility? Does it stop
when it encounters a problem, or carry on with the remaining files it
_can_ copy? (I use SyncToy, but [a] I don't know if that runs on '98 [b]
I don't know if it carries on after a failure-to-read, though I think it
does.)
>there were 2 bad clusters, but could not fix them. Rather than just
>marking them as BAD, it made the whole HDD go insane.
It may or may not be scandisk that made that happen.
>First it created several folders called DIR0000 DIR0001 etc.
>Then I found several folders missing, but the contents of some of them
>were in these DIR000X folders.
Yes, that's what it does: if it can't read the name of a folder, it
makes one called DIRxxxx, and puts the contents of the unreadable folder
into the new one.
>
>It told me to run the complete (long) version of Scandisk. I did it, and
>after taking hours, it told me there were 2 bad clusters in UNUSED
I'm guessing that the first pass did its moving into rescue folders, so
the bad ones were indeed now in unused space. However, that's just a
guess.
>spaces, and said they could not be fixed.
Well, if they were unfixable the first time, they'd be unfixable the
second. IIRR, the default pass just looks at used space and file
structures, so it's pot luck that the dud sectors were in a part of the
disk where you did have data, and it thus found them. The long version
checks the whole disk, including the parts currently not holding any
data: basically I think for each sector, it copies the data, then does
write and read tests, then puts back the original data. (Moving it to
somewhere else if it detects a problem.)
>
>Rather than just mark them clusters bad, I Then found over half of my
>folders missing. However, in DOS, I can see them, but found I can only
>copy small files, large ones cause ABORT RETRY FAIL.
Does sound as if the drive is decidedly unwell. The symptoms - can see
in DOS but not Windows - sound remarkably like another thread I've read
in the last day or two; I think it was/is in the '98 'group.
>
>This partition is about 50gb, with 23gb used. It's formatted FAT32.
>The entire drive is not bad. H: and I: work fine. Just G: is screwed up.
I wouldn't (as you've said you aren't going to, which is good policy)
rely on the rest of it remaining good, though.
>
>I have not run further tests, which might write to the drive. My goal is
>to retrieve the very important data to another drive. (I only have about
>half of that partition backed up). Once I can save the data, I plan to
>also save the data on the other partitions, and will replace the drive
>with a new one.
(Good.)
>
>What can I use to retrieve the data?
>
>Google told me to download PC Inspector. I tried it, it ran in Win98,
>but everytime I go to G: it errors out.
Does it work on H: and I:, i. e. the other parts of the same drive?
>
>What else is there? I'd prefer free, but will pay a reasonable fee for
>something guaranteed to work.The lost data is around 12gb, but it's
>extremely important. If I must, I will probably have to pay a pro for
>data recovery.
You were backing up - how often do you? [Not that I'm one to talk (-:!]
Also, what is it that is making such important data, that is running
under '98? (Not that '98 is in itself unreliable: it's so simple that
it's probably _more_ reliable. It's just that kit made for it is
probably getting a bit worn by now ...)
>
>Because this is a slave drive, I can plug it into a XP computer if need
>be, but will need some special card or something, because that computer
The motherboard may still have an IDE connector, though. (Are you sure
you're not the same person as the other thread?) SATA-_only_
motherboards, I would say, didn't become _common_ until after the XP era
(I'm not sure they're _that_ common even yet).
>has a SATA drive. I dont know if I am better trying to retrieve the data
>using Win98 or XP????
For a secondary (i. e. not system) drive, I think '98 is less likely to
try to write anything _to_ the drive; conversely, XP might do better,
and there are probably more tools.
>
>I dont have any newer OSs, than XP.
>Win98 is what I use the most, and this W98 computer has all my most
>important data. I only use XP to play videos.
>
On reading that, I've added the XP 'group, as those there might
recommend assorted utilities. This probably shouldn't be on the '7
'group (-:.
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Speed has never killed anyone. Suddenly becoming stationary, that's what gets
you. - Jeremy Clarkson, Top Gear
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Oct 3, 2017, 9:16:47 AM10/3/17
to
In message <m6g6tcl0ugdhf944n...@4ax.com>,
anon...@internet.none writes:
[]
>I only use 120gb drives because Win98 cant access any larger. But two of
Ah, right.
[]
>Yea, I never understood why MS made the copy process stop. All it needs
>to do is post a notice at the end saying file**** was not copied. Once I
Or it could stop to tell you (that would avoid it having to store up a
potentially long list of fails), but at least carry on when you click
OK. Stopping the copy is indeed infuriating, as you don't know what it
has copied and what it hasn't, since it probably does it in a different
order than you would. But we're stuck with it.
>had a saved website, and the default filename of that website exceeded
>the long filename size limit. Every time I tried to copy files, it would
>stop at that file. Talk about annoying. It took hours to figure out
>which file was the faulty one. Then it would not allow me to rename it.
>I finally deleted it using Dos.
Interesting that you could create it in the first place: obviously
whatever you are using to save websites isn't aware of the limit.
[]
>>>data I am missing is mostly electronic schematics and manuals. Some are
>>>near impossible to replace. I dont need a newer OS to use that stuff,
>>
>>(All that you've acquired since the last backup?)
>
>Yes, last backup was May 2017. I have about 20% of it on that backup.
>Everything else was added since.
You've already mentioned that you've decided you'll be backing up more
often now (-:. I know the problem ... [I'm curious: what are they
schematics and manuals _of/for_? Especially that they're nearly
irreplaceable?]
[]
>>(You could even add it without removing the CD, by making one master and
>>one slave, though if as I think you've said the CD is faulty, you might
>>as well remove it at the same time.)
>
>That CD drive was unplugged years ago. I didn't remove the dead drive,
>just unplugged the data and power cables. But the cable is still in the
>computer, doing nothing.
You'll need somewhere to _physically_ put the third drive - if you don't
have space in the existing drive cage for it, maybe where the CD drive
was will do, with a suitable adapter. (I did that on a friend's one
recently, where he'd upgraded to a motherboard that didn't have IDE, and
the old ZIP drive - which was in such an adapter - was thus redundant.
The adapter fitted a HD fine.)
[]
>>I didn't know you could still get new EIDE drives! Are you sure it's
>>new? Either way, might still be worth checking its SMART readout (using
>>a USB-EIDE cable-and-power-supply from your XP computer) before
>>committing to it.
>
>Yes it's new. Ebay has everything..... The 120gb is new, but I also
>bought a 160gb used one. It was so cheap I could not pass it up, and
>guaranteed to work. I figure I can plug that one on one of my XP
>machines and try to duplicate this defective one, before I mess with it.
Sounds like a plan. However, I'd make quite sure it _is_ working first,
regardless of the guarantee - all the guarantee will do is get you your
money back, not all the time you've wasted playing with it. Assuming you
can find an IDE socket on the motherboard of one of your XP machines,
run that utility I suggested on it - at least twice, ideally a few days
apart, then it will tell you if the SMART parameters are deteriorating
(and give you a predicted failure date if they are, though it may be
next century!). That only looks at the SMART data of course: there's
also one which Paul often recommends that draws a curve of how the
access speed varies across the disc (that's what it's designed for, and
is reflected in its name); this should give a smooth curve (HDs are
fastest near the start), with a few spikes downwards where XP was doing
something else for a moment while it was measuring. If any of those
spikes have appreciable width, it's a bad patch on the drive. (Or if
they're always in the same place on successive runs.)
Obviously running those - the SMART utility and the speed one - on your
failing drive would be interesting too, though it sounds as if it
definitely has a pimple.
[]
>>Do tell us how you get on!
>
(I've added the '98 'group in.)
anon...@internet.none writes:
[]
>I only use 120gb drives because Win98 cant access any larger. But two of
Ah, right.
[]
>Yea, I never understood why MS made the copy process stop. All it needs
>to do is post a notice at the end saying file**** was not copied. Once I
Or it could stop to tell you (that would avoid it having to store up a
potentially long list of fails), but at least carry on when you click
OK. Stopping the copy is indeed infuriating, as you don't know what it
has copied and what it hasn't, since it probably does it in a different
order than you would. But we're stuck with it.
>had a saved website, and the default filename of that website exceeded
>the long filename size limit. Every time I tried to copy files, it would
>stop at that file. Talk about annoying. It took hours to figure out
>which file was the faulty one. Then it would not allow me to rename it.
>I finally deleted it using Dos.
Interesting that you could create it in the first place: obviously
whatever you are using to save websites isn't aware of the limit.
[]
>>>data I am missing is mostly electronic schematics and manuals. Some are
>>>near impossible to replace. I dont need a newer OS to use that stuff,
>>
>>(All that you've acquired since the last backup?)
>
>Yes, last backup was May 2017. I have about 20% of it on that backup.
>Everything else was added since.
You've already mentioned that you've decided you'll be backing up more
often now (-:. I know the problem ... [I'm curious: what are they
schematics and manuals _of/for_? Especially that they're nearly
irreplaceable?]
[]
>>(You could even add it without removing the CD, by making one master and
>>one slave, though if as I think you've said the CD is faulty, you might
>>as well remove it at the same time.)
>
>That CD drive was unplugged years ago. I didn't remove the dead drive,
>just unplugged the data and power cables. But the cable is still in the
>computer, doing nothing.
You'll need somewhere to _physically_ put the third drive - if you don't
have space in the existing drive cage for it, maybe where the CD drive
was will do, with a suitable adapter. (I did that on a friend's one
recently, where he'd upgraded to a motherboard that didn't have IDE, and
the old ZIP drive - which was in such an adapter - was thus redundant.
The adapter fitted a HD fine.)
[]
>>I didn't know you could still get new EIDE drives! Are you sure it's
>>new? Either way, might still be worth checking its SMART readout (using
>>a USB-EIDE cable-and-power-supply from your XP computer) before
>>committing to it.
>
>Yes it's new. Ebay has everything..... The 120gb is new, but I also
>bought a 160gb used one. It was so cheap I could not pass it up, and
>guaranteed to work. I figure I can plug that one on one of my XP
>machines and try to duplicate this defective one, before I mess with it.
Sounds like a plan. However, I'd make quite sure it _is_ working first,
regardless of the guarantee - all the guarantee will do is get you your
money back, not all the time you've wasted playing with it. Assuming you
can find an IDE socket on the motherboard of one of your XP machines,
run that utility I suggested on it - at least twice, ideally a few days
apart, then it will tell you if the SMART parameters are deteriorating
(and give you a predicted failure date if they are, though it may be
next century!). That only looks at the SMART data of course: there's
also one which Paul often recommends that draws a curve of how the
access speed varies across the disc (that's what it's designed for, and
is reflected in its name); this should give a smooth curve (HDs are
fastest near the start), with a few spikes downwards where XP was doing
something else for a moment while it was measuring. If any of those
spikes have appreciable width, it's a bad patch on the drive. (Or if
they're always in the same place on successive runs.)
Obviously running those - the SMART utility and the speed one - on your
failing drive would be interesting too, though it sounds as if it
definitely has a pimple.
[]
>>Do tell us how you get on!
>
(I've added the '98 'group in.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
The fifth bestselling detail of all time: the Ford Transit. (RT/C4 2015-5-24.)
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
anon...@internet.none
Oct 4, 2017, 3:06:05 AM10/4/17
to
After being told about this program to assist in doing the cloning and
data recovery of my failed HDD, I did some looking up ddrescue. All I am
seeing is the Linux version, and worse yet, it requires doing it by the
command line. To me, this means I may as well just toss my failed drive
in the garbage and say goodbye to my data. I have never had any luck
with anything Linux, and if it involves the Linux command line, it's
time to "hang up the phone". On top of that, it appears that to even run
this thing means it needs to be burned to a DVD. That means I will first
have to buy a DVD burner, and blank media. NO THANKS!!!! (That DVD
burner would proably never be used again).
I cant believe there is not something similar that runs in Windows, or
even from Dos, which is just as good. I prefer to stay away from Linux
as far as possible. I will run anything that works on Win9x or WinXP, or
even DOS. (I am not afraid to use Dos command lines, because I was
raised on Dos).
So, what else is there? I'll even purchase commercial software if it's
not over $50. But what do I use?
I just cant believe there is nothing that runs on Windows or Dos, and
think it's sort of ridiculous to have to use Linux to fix a Windows
drive.
---
One other thing, according to Norton Disk Doctor (for Win9x), the FAT
table is defective. There is supposed to be a second copy of the FAT
table, How can I swap to the second copy, and is it possible to swap
back if that dont work?
Yes, I know this dont apply to Windows 7, but I am sure all of this info
would work for 7 as well.... I just use Win98 by personal choice and
also have XP available.
data recovery of my failed HDD, I did some looking up ddrescue. All I am
seeing is the Linux version, and worse yet, it requires doing it by the
command line. To me, this means I may as well just toss my failed drive
in the garbage and say goodbye to my data. I have never had any luck
with anything Linux, and if it involves the Linux command line, it's
time to "hang up the phone". On top of that, it appears that to even run
this thing means it needs to be burned to a DVD. That means I will first
have to buy a DVD burner, and blank media. NO THANKS!!!! (That DVD
burner would proably never be used again).
I cant believe there is not something similar that runs in Windows, or
even from Dos, which is just as good. I prefer to stay away from Linux
as far as possible. I will run anything that works on Win9x or WinXP, or
even DOS. (I am not afraid to use Dos command lines, because I was
raised on Dos).
So, what else is there? I'll even purchase commercial software if it's
not over $50. But what do I use?
I just cant believe there is nothing that runs on Windows or Dos, and
think it's sort of ridiculous to have to use Linux to fix a Windows
drive.
---
One other thing, according to Norton Disk Doctor (for Win9x), the FAT
table is defective. There is supposed to be a second copy of the FAT
table, How can I swap to the second copy, and is it possible to swap
back if that dont work?
Yes, I know this dont apply to Windows 7, but I am sure all of this info
would work for 7 as well.... I just use Win98 by personal choice and
also have XP available.
Monty
Oct 4, 2017, 3:28:33 AM10/4/17
to
https://alternativeto.net/software/ddrescue/?platform=windows
Paul
Oct 4, 2017, 7:20:36 AM10/4/17
to
I've never had a disk fall into the gray zone, to test all
these utilities and spot this. When I have a (really) bad disk, it dies
before I can get any data off.
https://www.data-medics.com/forum/how-to-clone-a-hard-drive-with-bad-sectors-using-ddrescue-t133.html
"Why you can't clone in Windows:
There are a great number of Windows based data recovery and
backup programs out there which make claims of being able to
clone hard drives with bad sectors. This may be partly true, as
some employ bad sector skipping code to jump ahead a large number
of sectors when a bad sector is hit and attempt to continue.
However none are well suited to the task simply because all
Windows based applications rely on the Windows host controller
to interface with the drive. Currently there is no known
workaround for this in Windows. The Windows host controller
unfortunately does not allow software running in Windows to
directly control ATA commands issued to the drive (such as
read timeouts) which are necessary to effectively clone as much
data as possible from hard drive with bad sectors. Fortunately
there is another OS capable of running on your computer that
does not suffer from these same constraints...."
AFAIK, the disk drive itself can hold up the process for 15 seconds
per sector, unless you have a drive with TLER in which case the time
constant can be reduced to the 5 to 7 second range. The disk drive
will try a *ton* of times itself, to read a bad sector.
*******
http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/Advanced_FAT_Repair
"Repair FAT tables
File Allocation Tables are maps of the data region, indicating
which clusters are used by files and directories. To repair the
FAT, the menu Repair FAT will have TestDisk compare the two FAT
copies. If the FATs mismatch (sector by sector check) or contains
errors, *TestDisk* uses the FAT copy with less errors and removes
the obvious errors. This function must only be used on FAT
filesystems with correct values in the boot sector. It has been
used with success when scandisk, chkdsk or fsck.vfat crashed or
refused to repair the filesystem.
"
TestDisk 7 is available from that site, and runs in Windows.
For example, on partitions with the "hidden" attribute,
ones without drive letters like System Reserved, you can
use the "file listing" interface, to actually list the
contents of a hidden partition. The interface is a
bitch :-) Press "control-c" to quit at any time. You'll
eventually learn how to use it... somehow...
TestDisk is also on the Linux DVD.
*******
If you have a USB stick, one big enough to hold a 1.6GB Linux
ISO file, the recent distros are UEFI hybrids with direct dd
transfer capability. You can prepare a USB stick, just by
downloading a Linux distro and transferring it to the USB
stick, sector by sector.
http://www.chrysocome.net/dd
# This assumes the second drive seen in Windows is the USB stick.
# Harddisk0 is the first disk. Harddisk1 is the second disk etc.
# The block size should divide evenly into the size of the ISO.
# The ISOs were properly padded to 1MB (1048576) byte multiples,
# but newer ones are only guaranteed to be a multiple of the optical
# disk sector size of 2048 bytes. I use "factor.exe" to factor the
# size number and work out an optimal block size.
dd if=c:\temp\linux.iso of=\\?\Device\Harddisk1\Partition0 bs=2048
That's to illustrate you *can* prepare Linux boot materials
from Windows. No CD needed (except on year 2005 computers or older,
that don't boot from USB).
http://www.chrysocome.net/downloads/dd-0.6beta3.zip
There are other tools for preparing boot USBs.
*******
For certain classes of disk problems, you have to
drop to *real DOS*. Count your lucky stars that
Linux, with GUI convenience, exists for at least some
of the problems you might encounter as an amateur
data recovery specialist. One of my problems is,
getting my DOS floppy to boot on modern computers.
It's almost impossible (can't figure out how to
modify memory map to make it fully functional).
It took a lot of trials on my Asrock 4Core to make
that work, but I eventually stumbled on the correct
values. I haven't been as lucky on newer kit.
HTH,
Paul
Lee
Oct 5, 2017, 9:53:06 PM10/5/17
to
It sounds like you aren't familiar with the long filename suite of executables that give plain old 8.3 dos mode the full power of long filenames for use in say copy and make directory operations?
DOSbox under Windows will do long filenames but they must be quoted and it's likely that full support isn't really there - it's an emulator after all and not really DOS. And as such it would be using the Windows driver to access the hard drive in the first place. And we already know it's blind.
http://lfntools.sourceforge.net/
I would have never let scandisk run myself, pulling the plug much more preferable to having that thing autocorrect something I have no control over, nor can I get the fix put back and it's all built into scandisk automagically. You can try to have it set up so that it doesn't, but it always does just what it wants anyway.
DOSbox under Windows will do long filenames but they must be quoted and it's likely that full support isn't really there - it's an emulator after all and not really DOS. And as such it would be using the Windows driver to access the hard drive in the first place. And we already know it's blind.
http://lfntools.sourceforge.net/
I would have never let scandisk run myself, pulling the plug much more preferable to having that thing autocorrect something I have no control over, nor can I get the fix put back and it's all built into scandisk automagically. You can try to have it set up so that it doesn't, but it always does just what it wants anyway.
0 new messages