Home > Archive > Homebuilt Computers > May 2004 > Surface checking whole drive: use Svend's Findbad ?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Surface checking whole drive: use Svend's Findbad ?
|
|
| John Smith 2004-05-14, 8:10 pm |
| Need to test my backup hard drive after it got dropped on the desk.
Is it better to surface check the whole drive at once rather than surface
check each partition separately?
Would Svend's "Findbad" do this whole-drive check?
Can any utility software get the hard drive to map any bad sectors not to be
used? Or does this mapping happen automatically inside the drive after the
drive has realized it has come across a bad sector duting a surface check?
| |
|
| "John Smith" <johnsmith@mail.com> wrote in message
news:40a381d0$0$174$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> Need to test my backup hard drive after it got dropped on the desk.
>
> Is it better to surface check the whole drive at once rather than surface
> check each partition separately?
>
> Would Svend's "Findbad" do this whole-drive check?
>
> Can any utility software get the hard drive to map any bad sectors not to
be
> used? Or does this mapping happen automatically inside the drive after
the
> drive has realized it has come across a bad sector duting a surface check?
>
You could also use the diskmanufacturer utility or HD Workbench (requires
Windows) from the site in my sig.
--
Regards,
Joep
http://www.diydatarecovery.nl
http://www.diydatarecovery.com
| |
| *Vanguard* 2004-05-14, 8:10 pm |
| John Smith said in news:40a381d0$0$174$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com:
> Need to test my backup hard drive after it got dropped on the desk.
>
> Is it better to surface check the whole drive at once rather than
> surface check each partition separately?
>
> Would Svend's "Findbad" do this whole-drive check?
>
> Can any utility software get the hard drive to map any bad sectors
> not to be used? Or does this mapping happen automatically inside the
> drive after the drive has realized it has come across a bad sector
> duting a surface check?
Go to the web site for the manufacturer of your hard drive to see if
they provide their own hard disk diagnostic software.
--
__________________________________________________
__________
*** Post replies to newsgroup. Share with others.
*** Email: domain = ".com" and append "=NEWS=" to Subject.
__________________________________________________
__________
| |
|
| On Thu, 13 May 2004 15:11:28 +0100, "John Smith" <johnsmith@mail.com>
wrote:
>Need to test my backup hard drive after it got dropped on the desk.
>
>Is it better to surface check the whole drive at once rather than surface
>check each partition separately?
It shouldn't matter, though the best test is one done with manufacturer's
utility which does typically check whole drive.
>
>Would Svend's "Findbad" do this whole-drive check?
>
>Can any utility software get the hard drive to map any bad sectors not to be
>used? Or does this mapping happen automatically inside the drive after the
>drive has realized it has come across a bad sector duting a surface check?
Bad sectors are automatically flagged and replaced with spares without any
utility or intervention by the user. You'll never know it happened. Once
all spares are gone then you'll get "visible" bad sectors.
You might want to run multiple passes, not just testing it once.
| |
| Jonski 2004-05-14, 8:10 pm |
| On Thu, 13 May 2004 15:11:28 +0100, "John Smith" <johnsmith@mail.com>
wrote:
>Need to test my backup hard drive after it got dropped on the desk.
>
>Is it better to surface check the whole drive at once rather than surface
>check each partition separately?
>
>Would Svend's "Findbad" do this whole-drive check?
>
>Can any utility software get the hard drive to map any bad sectors not to be
>used? Or does this mapping happen automatically inside the drive after the
>drive has realized it has come across a bad sector duting a surface check?
I've heard very good reports about Spinrite,
http://grc.com/spinrite.htm
To quote from their website:
>SpinRite examines the data storage surface of a drive one region at a time.
>It first reads the data out of a region, then exercises that region with patterns
>of data that SpinRite has determined are the most difficult for the drive to
>read and write. In this way, any weak and failing areas within the region are
>located and removed from use while none of the drive's original data is being
>stored there. Only after the region has been made absolutely safe, will the
>drive's original data be restored to that area.
>This crucial process of testing the surface of a drive WHILE IT CONTAINS
>DATA is COMPLETELY UNIQUE to SpinRite. No other disk utility has ever
>done this.
I have no connection with the site or company, I'm just an impressed
techie.
Cheers
Jon
| |
| *Vanguard* 2004-05-14, 8:10 pm |
| Jonski said in news:7cq7a0dosb5m8ip21rdiudj64hv2lnqhoc@4ax.com:
>
> I've heard very good reports about Spinrite,
> http://grc.com/spinrite.htm
>
I used Spinrite several years back. Lost my copy so I couldn't get the
next version at an upgrade price and haven't bothered to buy it again.
Still, it was a good utility. It also would check for "soft" sectors,
those in which their retentivity was getting low (all magnetic media
lose their retention over time) and mark them as bad, plus it would
refresh all data (all magnetic media incurs dipole stress which tends to
align them and weaken your data). Floppies are notories for this and
refreshing was easy, but then so is copying the files to your hard
drive, formatting the floppy, and copying the files back. It even
brought some drives back from the dead. I also used it for plated
drives because it would show a physical map of the sectors and I could
see where the plated surface was starting to bubble away from the
substrate. If I was repairing computers, Spinrite would definitely be
in my toolbox. I just haven't need of it for several years. Usually
the computers get expired and cycled out before the hard drives become a
problem, and data backups and drive images usually cover our butts, so a
dead or flaky hard drive is always a good excuse for replacing it ...
with an even bigger drive (there's a method to my madness of not using
Spinrite anymore since it's always nicer to get a bigger drive next
time).
| |
| Jonski 2004-05-14, 8:10 pm |
| On Thu, 13 May 2004 17:02:10 -0500, "*Vanguard*"
<no-email@reply-to-newsgroup.invalid> wrote:
>I used Spinrite several years back. Lost my copy so I couldn't get the
>next version at an upgrade price and haven't bothered to buy it again.
>Still, it was a good utility.
I've re-visited the website after not thinking about it for a year or
two, and it's starting to look a little limited and old now. They need
to add support for NTFS partitions, and I reckon they should GPL-it
and let the Linux community at it.
However, John Smith in the first post was looking for something to
check his dropped backup drive.
>[snip]
>data backups and drive images usually cover our butts, so a
>dead or flaky hard drive is always a good excuse for replacing it ...
>with an even bigger drive (there's a method to my madness of not using
>Spinrite anymore since it's always nicer to get a bigger drive next
>time).
Seeing as this *is* the backup that's had the accident, I'd either
test with this utility, assuming it's IDE and FAT, DOS-mountable, or
I'd get a new drive and make a new backup. Certainly Spinrite it not a
lot cheaper than replacing the drive.
Cheers
Jon
| |
|
| "Jonski" <!spam_jonm@ihug.co.nz.invalid> wrote in message
news:kdu7a05cmu4tqqljejf5n2p9ab83715ipi@4ax.com...
> I reckon they should GPL-it
> and let the Linux community at it.
>
What a stupid idea ..
--
Joep
| |
| Folkert Rienstra 2004-05-14, 8:10 pm |
| "kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message news:8577a0tl86gtj9ec4mnll0jbssfedlstju@4ax.com
> On Thu, 13 May 2004 15:11:28 +0100, "John Smith" <johnsmith@mail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> It shouldn't matter, though the best test is one done with manufacturer's
> utility which does typically check whole drive.
>
>
> Bad sectors are automatically flagged and replaced with spares without any
> utility or intervention by the user.
Utterly clueless.
You obviously never checked a drive manual on how it actually works.
> You'll never know it happened.
That's the idea.
For marginal, i.e. recoverable read error bad sectors, not unrecoverable read
error bad sectors. Unfortunately unrecoverable read error bad sectors happen.
> Once all spares are gone then you'll get "visible" bad sectors.
Nonsense.
You obviously have never seen unrecoverable read error bad sectors.
Those are only replaced on writes, and will always be visible on reads,
spares available or not.
>
> You might want to run multiple passes, not just testing it once.
| |
| Folkert Rienstra 2004-05-14, 8:10 pm |
|
"John Smith" <johnsmith@mail.com> wrote in message news:40a381d0$0$174$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com
> Need to test my backup hard drive after it got dropped on the desk.
>
> Is it better to surface check the whole drive at once rather than surface
> check each partition separately?
Is there a difference?
>
> Would Svend's "Findbad" do this whole-drive check?
Unless you tell it to do a limited number of cylinders, yes.
Not that it does actually check "cylinders".
>
> Can any utility software get the hard drive to map any bad sectors not to be
> used?
Yes, they call it 'scandisk' or 'checkdisk' in Windows.
> Or does this mapping happen automatically inside the drive after the
> drive has realized it has come across a bad sector during a surface check?
Only for recoverable read error bad sectors that take more than a defined
number of retries to be read successfully.
| |
| Jonski 2004-05-14, 8:10 pm |
| On Fri, 14 May 2004 00:56:58 +0200, "Joep" <j o e p @ d i y d a t a r
e c o v e r y . n l> wrote:
>What a stupid idea ..
Because...?
I only mentioned this because the app seems to be getting old. Their
sales revenues will be dropping for the product and will eventually
cease unless it's kept updated. So either update it, sell it to
someone who will, or set if Free. It would be a shame to lose it.
Cheers
Jon
| |
| Eric Gisin 2004-05-14, 8:10 pm |
|
"Jonski" <!spam_jonm@ihug.co.nz.invalid> wrote in message
news:gk28a01r97gcbg2k79t2ttkgqj31pfadid@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 14 May 2004 00:56:58 +0200, "Joep" <j o e p @ d i y d a t a r
> e c o v e r y . n l> wrote:
>
>
> Because...?
>
> I only mentioned this because the app seems to be getting old. Their
> sales revenues will be dropping for the product and will eventually
> cease unless it's kept updated. So either update it, sell it to
> someone who will, or set if Free. It would be a shame to lose it.
>
Anyone who has read the SpinRite marketing bullshit recognizes it is a fraud.
None of those bad sector techniques have worked for over 10 years.
| |
|
| "Jonski" <!spam_jonm@ihug.co.nz.invalid> wrote in message
news:gk28a01r97gcbg2k79t2ttkgqj31pfadid@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 14 May 2004 00:56:58 +0200, "Joep" <j o e p @ d i y d a t a r
> e c o v e r y . n l> wrote:
>
>
> Because...?
>
> I only mentioned this because the app seems to be getting old. Their
> sales revenues will be dropping for the product and will eventually
> cease unless it's kept updated. So either update it, sell it to
> someone who will, or set if Free.
Aren't you forgetting an option?
> It would be a shame to lose it.
>
Ah, there it is. Just let it die, thousands of tools that once existed
simply died. This is better IMO than having the GPL/Linux get at it and feed
this mentality of getting stuff for free. Just because a product reaches
it's 'end of life' doesn't mean the Linux clan should have it. There may be
competative products, they'd all of a sudden have to fight a 'free'
opponent.
--
Joep
| |
|
| "Jonski" <!spam_jonm@ihug.co.nz.invalid> wrote in message
news:kdu7a05cmu4tqqljejf5n2p9ab83715ipi@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 13 May 2004 17:02:10 -0500, "*Vanguard*"
> <no-email@reply-to-newsgroup.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> I've re-visited the website after not thinking about it for a year or
> two, and it's starting to look a little limited and old now. They need
> to add support for NTFS partitions, and I reckon they should GPL-it
> and let the Linux community at it.
>
BTW - a new Spinrite version IS on the way.
--
Joep
| |
| Mark M 2004-05-14, 8:10 pm |
| "Joep" <j o e p @ d i y d a t a r e c o v e r y . n l> wrote:
> "Jonski" <!spam_jonm@ihug.co.nz.invalid> wrote in message
> news:kdu7a05cmu4tqqljejf5n2p9ab83715ipi@4ax.com...
>
> BTW - a new Spinrite version IS on the way.
Do you have any more info about the new version?
There's nothing on http://grc.com/srhistory.htm.
Thanks.
| |
|
| "Mark M" <MarkM_csiphsCANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:94E96E9E0739A3A75@130.133.1.4...
> "Joep" <j o e p @ d i y d a t a r e c o v e r y . n l> wrote:
>
>
>
> Do you have any more info about the new version?
>
> There's nothing on http://grc.com/srhistory.htm.
>
> Thanks.
You can find more info in the GRC newsgroup grc.spinrite.dev
--
Joep
| |
| *Vanguard* 2004-05-14, 8:10 pm |
| Joep said in news:4b77$40a47eca$3eddca68$19244@nf3.news-service-com:
> "Jonski" <!spam_jonm@ihug.co.nz.invalid> wrote in message
> news:kdu7a05cmu4tqqljejf5n2p9ab83715ipi@4ax.com...
>
> BTW - a new Spinrite version IS on the way.
A utility that doesn't provide updates, especially to match the pace of
hardware changes, guarantees itself obsolescence and obscurity. A
Google search on "Spinrite 5.0", the latest version mentioned at
grc.com, found articles back in November 1999 mentioning it, so it came
out around that time or maybe even earlier. 4+ years is far too long
between versions. I used it a long time ago and it was handy then. I
remember seeing it stagnate and after losing my copy then there was
definitely no reason to monitor it further.
I used to be a customer and was very pleased with the product way back
then. But if after 4 years (maybe 5) for the next catch-up version to
appear then Gibson will have to do a hell of a lot of convincing for me
to try it again, assuming there isn't already something out there to do
the same and which never did stagnate.
--
__________________________________________________
__________
*** Post replies to newsgroup. Share with others.
*** Email: domain = ".com" and append "=NEWS=" to Subject.
__________________________________________________
__________
| |
| *Vanguard* 2004-05-14, 8:10 pm |
| Jonski said in news:kdu7a05cmu4tqqljejf5n2p9ab83715ipi@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 13 May 2004 17:02:10 -0500, "*Vanguard*"
> <no-email@reply-to-newsgroup.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> I've re-visited the website after not thinking about it for a year or
> two, and it's starting to look a little limited and old now. They need
> to add support for NTFS partitions, and I reckon they should GPL-it
> and let the Linux community at it.
True. After you mention it, another reason why I never bothered looking
at or getting Spinrite is that it appeared to have stagnated. His site
lists version 5.0 as the latest. A Google search on "Spinrite 5.0"
turns up reviews or mentions of this version back in November 1999.
Besides never mentioning NTFS in his brochure and manual for Spinrite,
it definitely doesn't mention USB-connected drives. Pity, it used to be
a good utility. I wonder what replaces it now. I only responded
because Jonski mentioned it and I recalled used it many, many moons ago.
> However, John Smith in the first post was looking for something to
> check his dropped backup drive.
>
> Seeing as this *is* the backup that's had the accident, I'd either
> test with this utility, assuming it's IDE and FAT, DOS-mountable, or
> I'd get a new drive and make a new backup. Certainly Spinrite it not a
> lot cheaper than replacing the drive.
That's why I do *not* use hard drives for backups. You are susceptible
to mechanical and electronic failure either through wear, surges, or
abuse. With tapes, CDs, DVDs, Zip disks, or other removable media, you
just get another same-type drive. Density and speed are the advantages
to using hard disks, so I suppose it would be okay for your first line
of backup (i.e., the son in the grandfather-father-son rotation set).
--
__________________________________________________
__________
*** Post replies to newsgroup. Share with others.
*** Email: domain = ".com" and append "=NEWS=" to Subject.
__________________________________________________
__________
| |
| *Vanguard* 2004-05-14, 8:10 pm |
| Joep said in news:b95ec$40a4b149$3eddca68$9879@nf3.news-service-com:
> You can find more info in the GRC newsgroup grc.spinrite.dev
By the way, you'll have to connect to news.grc.com to see that
newsgroup. I don't think the GRC news server syncs up with others;
i.e., it is a publicly accessible "private" newsgroup in that you have
to connect to that server to see those newsgroups.
--
__________________________________________________
__________
*** Post replies to newsgroup. Share with others.
*** Email: domain = ".com" and append "=NEWS=" to Subject.
__________________________________________________
__________
| |
| *Vanguard* 2004-05-14, 8:10 pm |
| *Vanguard* said in news:m-ydnSffvPVWcTndRVn-sA@comcast.com:
> ... A Google search on
> "Spinrite 5.0" turns up reviews or mentions of this version back in
> November 1999. ...
Just took a look at http://grc.com/srhistory.htm. Guess 5.0 came out in
early 1998. Uffda! Even older than I thought.
Windows NT 3.51 was released in May 1995 so it is peculiar that Spinrite
5.0 did not have support for NTFS when released 3 years later. When and
if version 6.x gets released, I wonder how old will already be its
hardware and file system support.
| |
| Carl Farrington 2004-05-15, 3:15 am |
| Folkert Rienstra wrote:
> "John Smith" <johnsmith@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:40a381d0$0$174$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com
>
> Is there a difference?
>
>
> Unless you tell it to do a limited number of cylinders, yes.
> Not that it does actually check "cylinders".
>
>
> Yes, they call it 'scandisk' or 'checkdisk' in Windows.
oh really?
| |
| Stacey 2004-05-15, 2:15 pm |
| John Smith wrote:
> Need to test my backup hard drive after it got dropped on the desk.
>
How important is the data? I have a drive here that was dropped about 1
foot, it passes every software test I've ever performed on it but data
dissappears from it, enough so that it isn't usable for anything!
--
Stacey
| |
| Stacey 2004-05-15, 2:15 pm |
| Joep wrote:
> Just because a product
> reaches it's 'end of life' doesn't mean the Linux clan should have it.
> There may be competative products, they'd all of a sudden have to fight a
> 'free' opponent.
>
Here's an idea, maybe the products we pay for should work better than free
ones do?
Does this mean I shouldn't be able to pick up someones thrown away computer
off the side of the road because it might keep someone from selling me one?
Of clourse not because the one I PAY for is going to work better.
--
Stacey
| |
| Franc Zabkar 2004-05-16, 10:15 am |
| On Sat, 15 May 2004 13:16:20 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> put
finger to keyboard and composed:
>John Smith wrote:
>
>
>How important is the data? I have a drive here that was dropped about 1
>foot, it passes every software test I've ever performed on it but data
>dissappears from it, enough so that it isn't usable for anything!
Perhaps a virus survived the fall, too. ;-)
- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.
| |
| Stacey 2004-05-16, 8:15 pm |
| Franc Zabkar wrote:
> On Sat, 15 May 2004 13:16:20 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> put
> finger to keyboard and composed:
>
>
> Perhaps a virus survived the fall, too. ;-)
>
>
Yea I suppose a windows virus would make linux lose data....
--
Stacey
| |
| J. Clarke 2004-05-22, 7:15 am |
| *Vanguard* wrote:
> Jonski said in news:kdu7a05cmu4tqqljejf5n2p9ab83715ipi@4ax.com:
>
> True. After you mention it, another reason why I never bothered looking
> at or getting Spinrite is that it appeared to have stagnated. His site
> lists version 5.0 as the latest. A Google search on "Spinrite 5.0"
> turns up reviews or mentions of this version back in November 1999.
> Besides never mentioning NTFS in his brochure and manual for Spinrite,
> it definitely doesn't mention USB-connected drives. Pity, it used to be
> a good utility. I wonder what replaces it now. I only responded
> because Jonski mentioned it and I recalled used it many, many moons ago.
>
>
> That's why I do *not* use hard drives for backups. You are susceptible
> to mechanical and electronic failure either through wear, surges, or
> abuse. With tapes, CDs, DVDs, Zip disks, or other removable media, you
> just get another same-type drive.
Wear and abuse will kill those too.
> Density and speed are the advantages
> to using hard disks, so I suppose it would be okay for your first line
> of backup (i.e., the son in the grandfather-father-son rotation set).
Run the numbers and you'll find that they win on cost as well for all but
very small or very large backup sets. But you have to treat the drive as
disposable media--have a few spares on the shelf and when one fails, don't
agonize over it, toss it.
And I fear that I don't understand how the hard disk can be the "son" in a
grandfather, father, son rotation without also being the grandfather and
the father.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
|
|
|
|
|