Data Recovery Help

[rsatd]

You'll only end up with multiple copies if you're being a fool

Yep, but cp is so much easier then looking for some software to do it for me

I just don't believe in partitions, not mainly for the user error side but for the problem that HDDs fail

Just because part of the HDD has failed, does not mean all your data is lost, the simplest way back in the day was to make a partition that covered those failed sectors and mark it as unused (ie don't bother to format it).

Back in the day, had 2x250MB HDD's configured as a single partition when one of HDD's had failed sectors. It never got in the way and everything worked fine.

Besides what is stopping sectors from failing if you are using a partition or a whole drive? Sorry but I do not see any rational explanation as to why a partition is more likely to fail then a separate disk? The only time I can see where a separate data disk is better is if you want to take your data with you. Just unmount the disk and unplug (if its external) it.

 

[mrk]

Back in the day? we're in the today not the yesterday! today's drives are hundreds of GB and a drive failure is /usually/ just that! there's no simple fix of marking a partition in many cases due to the sheer density of the platters and the fact that the drive usually clicks away at boot or gives copy errors when moving data away because if the drive is x% fragmented then you're going to be trying to pull data fragments from bad sectors which won't work.

Drives are so cheap now anyway so it's silly not to have backup drives for exactly this reason.

 

[I get around]

This should work fine

 

[B@Th*nG]

i've used getbackdata to recover my files..

+1

B@

 

[rsatd]

Back in the day? we're in the today not the yesterday! today's drives are hundreds of GB and a drive failure is /usually/ just that! there's no simple fix of marking a partition in many cases due to the sheer density of the platters and the fact that the drive usually clicks away at boot or gives copy errors when moving data away because if the drive is x% fragmented then you're going to be trying to pull data fragments from bad sectors which won't work.

Eh? Hang on a minute, copy errors, fragmentation I was under impression that even NTFS does not need "defragging" these days, and if you are still using FAT32... Sorry, but I don't think you are allowed to moan about me living in the past . I would suggest using a decent HDD/Partition type to fix that mate, copy errors should not happen. And what has dencity got to do with anything, either you are very unlucky, or I managed to get my HDD's manufactured in the vacum of space or something, because they never had any issues.

Technology gets better with time, not worse. I admit it has been a while since I had to cater for bad blocks on HDDs, but a failure is NOT /usually/ just that. Partition table can be easily restored, it will be exactly the same given exactly the same parameters. If file allocation table goes, it too can be restored depending on what partition type you are using.

Sorry, but I cannot find any logical explanation as to how using partitions is any less safe for data, then separate disks for normal day to day use at home.

 

[mrk]

Yes, copy errors.

HDDs get fragmented, unless you're defragmenting regularly then the data is going to be spread out in fragments all over the occupied disk space, free space will remain free space.

If we have blocks 01 to 500 and you have data (say some home videos) saved in that block region and some fragments are in block 10-20 whilst others are in 250-300 and the drive has bad sectors in the former then that data is gone - is it not?

Also restoring a failed drive, you make it sound as easy as pie which it is not in many cases and is highly dependant on what part of the drive has failed I suppose which the SMART data will tell you.

I've been through several drive recovery jobs in the past, the latest being only a few weeks ago and it would not have made it any easier being partitioned, in fact it would have made it worse because the specific SMART attribute that had failed and the volume of data that had to be copied to a new disk.

And also simply marking a bad sector range as unused is not a solution to the problem.

 

[The Mad Rapper]

Hey guys,

Right, my other half has deleted all my holiday pictures and pics of his dads 60th from his laptop. He reinstalled windows and didn't back these files up. Genius I hear you say.

We've tried stuff like EASEUS datarecovery wizard, prodata doctor from techddi.com, discdoctors undelete,

Does anyone have any tips on how to get them back?

Any help much appreciated! And if you don't have a clue then tips on how to kill the little **** also much appreciated!

If you don't get any joy with Recuva then I will forensically recover the files for you. I work in London so could arrange to meet somewhere (I'll need the drive out of the laptop). E-Mail is in Trust.

 

[The Mad Rapper]

Just because part of the HDD has failed, does not mean all your data is lost, the simplest way back in the day was to make a partition that covered those failed sectors and mark it as unused (ie don't bother to format it).

That is no longer relevant. Today the IDE controller on the bottom of the drive automatically maps out bad sectors.

 

[platypus]

Getbackdata or R-Studio.

 

[robgmun]

This is why i always have a secondary disk or an at least an external drive at all times. All my important data (movies, music, pictures, software) goes there and i can reinstall windows without worries because it all on another disk already

 

[The Mad Rapper]

This is why i always have a secondary disk or an at least an external drive at all times. All my important data (movies, music, pictures, software) goes there and i can reinstall windows without worries because it all on another disk already

This is very good practice and I'd recommend it to everyone. I do this myself, but please remember it does not negate the need for regular backups; storage drives are not immune to failing!

 

[bledd]

echoing everything that mrk has said.



because I luuurv him

 

[philjohn]

I can recommend JungleDisk, stores your files on an Amazon S3 share for pennies a GB. I've got around 30gigs of files on mine and it only costs a few quid a month.

 

[rsatd]

Yes, copy errors.

Got to say, seriously never had ANY with ANY HDDs I used...

HDDs get fragmented, unless you're defragmenting regularly then the data is going to be spread out in fragments all over the occupied disk space, free space will remain free space.


If we have blocks 01 to 500 and you have data (say some home videos) saved in that block region and some fragments are in block 10-20 whilst others are in 250-300 and the drive has bad sectors in the former then that data is gone - is it not?

You do realise that a decent filesystem these days is clever enough not to do that unless the disk is completely full? Depending on the FS, it can attempt to find enough space if you are copying several files to allocate them together. It doesn't just blindly write block after block.

Besides, I know its an exampe, however the data is not all gone anyway, due to the way video files work. You can "fix" it, by simply saying that the video file starts at the earliest point you have data for, it will start displaying the video from the earliest I-frame it can find, and still have the remaining data.

And depends on just what the problem is with the blocks, maybe you can read but not write for example.

Also restoring a failed drive, you make it sound as easy as pie which it is not in many cases and is highly dependant on what part of the drive has failed I suppose which teh SMART data will tell you.

And also simply marking a bad sector range as unused is not a solution to the problem.

I would agree here, that was just an example, modern FS can mark bad blocks as bad and they would simple be unused with nothing else changed. That was just an example of an "easy solution" for when something SERIOUSLY goes wrong.

But the point of the argument, was that I still do not see how multi-partitioning is any worse then just having separate drives, do you use a separate drive for your swap file? Another for the boot "partition"? Third one for OS and fourth for the data itself?

 

[bledd]

rsatd, I can't see how you've reached any of your conclusions..

NTFS still becomes fragmented, fact. (not sure why we have that discussion here, but still)
Having 2 hard drives, with a copy of a file on each of them is twice as reliable as having a hard drive with two partitions with a copy of the file on each.

Swap file should only be on the same partition as the OS, or another drive completely.

 

[rsatd]

NTFS still becomes fragmented, fact.

Was under the impression that they updated the way it operates at one time or another in the past (recall reading about it somewhere). But seeing as I don't use it, my bad then.

Having 2 hard drives, with a copy of a file on each of them is twice as reliable as having a hard drive with two partitions with a copy of the file on each.

Exactly how? Both drives are as likely to fail as each other as if you are using identical drives at the same time, they will have exactly the same operating hours used.

Granted if you are only backing up, say once a day, the second HDD would have less writes under its belt. But since when is that an issue? I have yet to come across an HDD that went over its write limit in a home environment... and even then FS can mark bad blocks on the fly and just use others, when will you miss a dead block or two? Blocks these days are about 2-4kb anyway

Swap file should only be on the same partition as the OS, or another drive completely.

Commonly accepted linux practice for a swap, is a partition. Whether it is on the same or another hdd, makes for little difference. When I used to run windows, I did the same thing, make a partition of 2xram, and put a single, fixed size swap file on it. Worked wonders for "fragmentation".

 

[mrk]

The days of keeping a fixed swapfile or putting it on another drive are over since Vista. Windows manages the swapfile perfectly and there is little to no performance benefit in changing it from system managed and/or on the OS partition vs another drive.

The only time you'll see dropped performance is when you create a partition at the end of the drive and plonk the swapfile on that partition - the drive reads faster at the start of the drive platter hence why Windows will keep the swapfile there when it is left to be system managed. It still gets fragmented though because it is....a HDD it resides on and on a filesystem that gets fragmented.

What are the sizes of data you've copied over in the past? I'm guessing it would be nowhere near hundreds of GB. I guess you'd understand if you had modern day experience with data backup and restoration!

I do weekly backups and am entirely strict on my methods used and feel it's a near foolproof method shy of putting it onto tape backups or physical media but they're also capable of failing.....everything is prone to failing basically and the more in sync backups you have the safer you are.

Backup regularly and defrag regularly and keep an eye on SMART attributes to be totally aware of your data integrity. It's not failed me yet following this system and I juggle 2.5TB of personal data weekly! Thankfully not 2.5TB every week each time but a Echo sync of whatever has changed so my data backups are always up to date.

 

[james.miller]

keep important data in two seperate locations. seperate PHYSICAL locations. it's that simple.

Exactly how? Both drives are as likely to fail as each other as if you are using identical drives at the same time, they will have exactly the same operating hours used.

if you have two coins and flip them, whats the chances of gettings heads on both? the same as getting heads on one?

 

[rsatd]

The days of keeping a fixed swapfile or putting it on another drive are over since Vista. Windows manages the swapfile perfectly and there is little to no performance benefit in changing it from system managed and/or on the OS partition vs another drive.

Ok, I stand correted, but then I used vista for 15 minutes, 5 of which it spent booting up, 5 it spent crashing exploder, and 5 it spent shutting down before I got bored and pushed the off button (Was at my then uni, before the "You are configuring it wrong").

*Snip*

Actually yes you are corerct, I don't copy TB of data, it simply lives on the HDD perfectly happy and intact for many years now without the need to do any of that. No data was lost, no HDD unexplicably "died", and I don't waste time configuring/religiously following any backup scheduale.

In an office, that would be another story, but at home, I seriously do not see how hdd's just die all over sudden and you loose EVERYTHING...

HDD failure is not a coin flip, it does not happen every 5 seconds when you are bored and have a coin and it suddenly wipes out your entire disk clean.

 

["andy"]

should probably just murder him. the police forensic squad might give you the photos they find whilst searching for your motive