Data Recovery Help

[bledd]

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.

It still gets fragmented

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.

I cannot fathom where you begin to build that argument, the same applies in this example..

Boy A :
Writes down a password in a book, turns to another page, and writes it down again.

Boy B :
Writes down a password in a book, then gets a second book and writes it down here also.


Someone steals a book from Boy A and Boy B. Boy A is screwed, since he only had 1 book.

Hard drives don't magically die all at the same time, after x hours of usage.


Don't keep your eggs in one basket applies here

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".

Linux maybe, but Microsoft themselves say to keep the swapfile on the same partition, or on another drive.

They say do not put it on another partition on the same drive

 

[mrk]

It doesn't just die willy nilly, you get plenty of warning at system boot from the BIOS via SMART monitoring as well as in Windows if you have Vista or above because Windows will notify you that the drive is unhealthy and that you should back up data from it as soon as possible.

It's also not a religious affair but a smart routine which becomes second nature and executed by a few clicks of the mouse and pressing of the power button on the external drive.

I'd say your backed up data on partitions is in risky hands relying on partitions and all tbh.

 

[bledd]

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").



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.

Hard drives do sometimes 'just die', you just happen to have been lucky.

Sounds like you've got some kind of gripe with 'Windblows' and 'M$' etc

 

[james.miller]

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.

nobody said it was, but the question is valid. the chances of two drives failing at the same time are many many times that of one failing. for the cost of buying another drive, or simply copying the data if you already have another drive, there is absolutely not reason no to back that important data up.

 

[Berserker]

I seriously do not see how hdd's just die all over sudden and you loose EVERYTHING...

You may not see it, but that doesn't mean it does not happen. Hard disk head crashes still happen. Servo failures happen. Controller failures happen. Firmware failures happen (ask anyone with a 1.5TB Seagate drive about that). They may all be rare, but they will all kill the drive - dead.

Only a few weeks ago someone I know killed a pair of external HDDs by getting their power supplies swapped around by accident - both plugs looked the same but were wired up differently.

In fact, human error is by far the most common cause of data loss - which is exactly what happened to the OP. There are a myriad different ways us humans can destroy technology.

 

[rsatd]

*Snip*

Someone keeps stealing your hdds? Invest in better home security .

Jokes aside, I still do not see how 2 disks are actually better then a single partitioned one. In your theft example, is your backup disk sitting in a x hours fire proof safe? If its just a separate disk in the same box as your other one, fire or theft, or any other disaster, both will be lost just the same.

The argument here is not that backups are bad and unessesary, the argument started from mrk complaining about having one os partition and one data partition on the same disk is somehow worse then having one os disk, and one data disk.

There are arguments for multi-disk model, if for instance you have these new SSD drive, in which case OS would live on that and your data on a conventional xTB disk. However that is not the argument here.

Linux maybe, but Microsoft themselves say to keep the swapfile on the same partition, or on another drive.

They say do not put it on another partition on the same drive

Never knew that, but then I don't listen to microsoft and never had problems when I was running windows in the past. Just because I do not use it in anger now, does not mean I dislike them, just don't use it now.

ask anyone with a 1.5TB Seagate drive about that

They (Seagate) used to suck in the past, however their Barracuda range seems to be quiet reliable. Company I worked for in the past, used several 750gb models as part of their shared internal storage. They never failed once. I am using 500GB and 1.5TB Barracudas, now at home, no problems ever.

Yes user error can happen, but then what will stop you from mixing the plugs on both your backup and your day to day use HDD? Or maybe a lightning strike(if it does) will still fry both your current and your backup drive. The point is, that it happens rarely and while there are many backup strategies, none of them are fool proof. But that is not what the argument is about

 

[mrk]

For the purpose of backing up and faster transfer rates, separate disks for OS and user data > one disk with both. It really is that simple.

Not only that but it aids reliability, less strain on one drive doing both tasks and so extends drive lifetime in the long run.

If you're just using your PC day in day out for the odd bits here and there then you're not exactly tasking your drives much, in this day and age many of us use our drives to their upper limits, maxing out the caches during transfers, loading heavy games, editing videos, downloading large volumes of media etc - all of which will task the drives greatly and having separate drives will ease of this heavy use because 2x drives can work faster together than 2x partitions on one drive.

It does not appear that you're a heavy enough PC user to understand this.

 

[Col_M]

I can't add anything to what has been said so far but I'm now an evangelical backup follower after having total data loss that was avoided by having a backup.

Always have a backup and if something is important to you have a backup of the backup at a friends house, in your workplace or anywhere that isn't in your home.

 

[bledd]

Never knew that, but then I don't listen to microsoft and never had problems when I was running windows in the past. Just because I do not use it in anger now, does not mean I dislike them, just don't use it now.

There's no point in arguing with you. You obviously know better than all of us, and Microsoft

 

[Berserker]

OK, let's look at a few simple scenarios:

User selects 'use entire disk' when installing an OS (since it appears you're a Linux fan, I should point out that this is the default on many Linux distros - but not on Windows). One disk: both copies gone (though recovery might be possible). Two disks: one copy gone.

User deletes files. One disk: Recoverable from second partition. Two disks: Recoverable from second disk.

Head crash/servo failure. One disk: data is gone. Two disks: One disk is dead, the other is fine.

Power supply failure fries everything. One disk: data gone. Two internal disks: data gone. One internal and one external disk: Data on the external disk may be OK (e.g. if the external disk was unplugged).

So then, the best solution is two disks, one of which is kept at a separate location when not in use. Of course, your one disk solution is far better than nothing.

 

[mrk]

I don't know about many of you but my Firefox configuration is ranked up there with my Photo catalogue! it is /that/ important to me

A FEBE backup of that sets my mind with ease though

 

[rsatd]

If you're just using your PC day in day out for the odd bits here and there then you're not exactly tasking your drives much

That is true, I don't use anything that requires high ram, cpu or hdd usage. The most resource intensive application I run is a web browser or from time to time few shell scripts that manipulates photos.

because 2x drives can work faster together than 2x partitions on one drive.

Ok, I see the side of the argument there for saving few seconds of your life to do something else. Personally if I wanted actual performance, I would look at SSD drives, so I could actually see the difference, but that's just me.

It does not appear that you're a heavy enough PC user to understand this.

Now, now, lets not jump to conclusions. Just because I don't play FarCry 3000 or download every single TV show on my personal T5 connection (Bandwidth roughly similar to a Sata-300, discounting actual write/seek time delays ect.), that I am not a "heavy enouch PC user". Our "heavy enough" definitions seem to mismatch .

Berserker, I don't quiet understand where you are going to with those examples. As how many of us really go that far for a home system? Well, maybe those of us who are lucky to have two or more homes or something... But hey, better make sure they are in different countries... and have trustworthy guards with attack dogs, finger print, eye scanners and a missile silo for pre-emptive retaliation on anyone who dares to look at our data funny. Maybe throw in a few SAS teams with world wide deployment in 30 minutes via space pod drops? Or is that a bit overkill for a few TB of data?

Think we are really going off topic here. So I am going to shut up and say what I said the first time: Easiest, cheapest and low maintenance solution for windows re-install, loss of data problems is, two partitions: 1 pure OS, 1 pure data.

 

[shauncr91]

I don't know about many of you but my Firefox configuration is ranked up there with my Photo catalogue! it is /that/ important to me

A FEBE backup of that sets my mind with ease though

Yep. Took me almost 4 months to get it back to perfect after my last format, and even now I'm always fiddling with it

 

[mrk]

It's not really the easiest or cheapest is it though, if the drive fails then it's costly to get data back based on the kind of failure and how important the data stored on it is. It's also beyond the scope of the average user to manage partitions and understand what a partition is so isn't really easier than plugging in a 2nd HDD and copying data on to it for backups or whatever.

SSDs are also not cost effective for backups, they are fine as an OS disk but at present they cost the earth compared to a HDD, their increased value does not go hand in hand with the increased performance and they are also flash based storage drives so while they may have a MTBF of 30k hours they probably won't last that long at all before the flash media they use grows old from being written to so many times over the past 2 years or whatever.

In essence solid state storage is not a long term solution.

All roads point to the easiest and most convenient solution which is a 2nd HDD.

 

[michael baxter]

DON'T BOOT THE PC!

It may cause further data loss............

Remove the hard drive, put it into a USB caddy, recover from another machine.

 

[LostPhil]

EDIT: Ignore