If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"andy" wrote in message ... It's not a "feature". The mechanical noises and other symptoms you describe most likely result from a head crash, where the heads, which normally float on a very thin cushion of air, have contacted the disk surface and scraped the oxide off the disk, making it unreadable. If it can't be read, it won't come "ready" (as in "ready to use") and the BIOS won't detect it. Once the heads It doesn't make sense to me. Even if part of the surface is destroyed, most of it is not, Nonsense. Once any part of the surface is destroyed then then rest dies VERY soon thereafter. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 20:59:17 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" wrote:
But I could then recover 80% of my data, and now I can recover 0% of my data. Does it make sense for you now? Perfect sense and no you couldn't recover 80% of your data. Why? a. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 21:03:42 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" wrote:
Nonsense. Once any part of the surface is destroyed then then rest dies VERY soon thereafter. It depends what you mean saying that. When the disk was detectable always the same data was unavailable, therefore I assume that if only the disk could be detectable then I could recover 80% of the data. a. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 21:01:16 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" wrote:
When the disk was detectable then about 20% of files could not be read. This was not because bad sectors (the disk did not have any AFAIK), but because of the mechanics failure (when it started to have the symptoms of the failure also 20% of data became unavailable). No, now 100% is unavailable. Only because the disk cannot be detected. a. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron Reaugh" wrote in message
"CJT" wrote in message ... andy wrote: Hi! Could someone please explain why in the case of *mechanical* failure HD becomes sometimes undetected by BIOS and/or the operating system (e.g. win xp or linux)? If it was an electronic failure then such behaviour would be obious, but why the same happens with some mechanical failures? When electronics is working in my opinion it still should be detected by bios and/or the system (win xp or linux), but often it is not. I could recover about 80% of the data from my HDD (which apparently has a mechanical failure - plates spin up and down, heads create bad noises) if only the disk could be seen by the system all the time. But often during copying of the data heads hit with a loud sound so badly that sometimes even the plates stop rotating, and the disk then dissapears from the system. It is then very difficult to make it detectable by the system again, sometimes the sytem can detect it but only after several minutes of copying it freezes and then dissapears again. Recently, I was unlucky, and even after several dozens of retries it's still undetectable by the system. Could you please advice what to do to make the disk detectable by the system all the time? What causes that it is not detectable although the failure is in mechanics not electronics? BTW, if someone has the same disk model (Quantum Fireball ST64A011), please let me know. andy Maybe it stores part of its own software on the platters. Most all current HDs do that. Nope, "most all current HDs" probably do not. My IBM DMVS does not and that drive is already ~5 years old. Flashrom has become cheap enough to take all the firmware, not just the bare minimum part to spin the drive up and load the rest. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"andy" wrote in message ... On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 21:03:42 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" wrote: Nonsense. Once any part of the surface is destroyed then then rest dies VERY soon thereafter. It depends what you mean saying that. When the disk was detectable always the same data was unavailable, therefore I assume that if only the disk could be detectable then I could recover 80% of the data. No, the entire surface is covered with pixie dust. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 23:00:39 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" wrote:
"andy" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 21:03:42 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" wrote: It depends what you mean saying that. When the disk was detectable always the same data was unavailable, therefore I assume that if only the disk could be detectable then I could recover 80% of the data. No, the entire surface is covered with pixie dust. So what. The data could not be recovered not because of bad sectors (there were none before failure, not sure whether there are any now - not possible to test it), but because of the bad movements of the heads, and bad spinning of the plates. a. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 00:11:12 +0100, andy
wrote: So what. The data could not be recovered not because of bad sectors (there were none before failure, not sure whether there are any now - not possible to test it), but because of the bad movements of the heads, and bad spinning of the plates. LOL, since you seem to be an expert at it, recover the data and then you have proof! Your drive is dead, the data is gone... move on, you're just wasting time now. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"andy" wrote in message ... On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 20:59:17 GMT, "Ron Reaugh" wrote: But I could then recover 80% of my data, and now I can recover 0% of my data. Does it make sense for you now? Perfect sense and no you couldn't recover 80% of your data. Why? Soot. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 23:53:02 GMT, kony wrote:
On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 00:11:12 +0100, andy wrote: So what. The data could not be recovered not because of bad sectors (there were none before failure, not sure whether there are any now - not possible to test it), but because of the bad movements of the heads, and bad spinning of the plates. LOL, since you seem to be an expert at it, recover the data and then you have proof! I will if you only tell me how to make the disk visible in the system. Your drive is dead, the data is gone... move on, you're just wasting time now. Most of the data (perhaps even all) is not gone - all plates (or most of the plates) are not damaged, so the data are still on them and just wait to be recovered. I will recover it if I buy another such disk model. But in one thing you're right - I'm wasting my time talking to you. :/ Bye. a. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Why mechanical failure causes HDD being undetectable by bios or OS ? | andy | General | 32 | September 8th 04 09:01 PM |
Why mechanical failure causes HDD being undetectable by bios or OS ? | andy | General | 0 | September 3rd 04 04:02 AM |
Weird Msg. - FDC Failure | Marilyn E. Burford | Dell Computers | 1 | July 11th 04 02:37 AM |
SATA raid: single point of failure? | Jim Wall | Storage & Hardrives | 4 | June 10th 04 10:35 AM |
Boot Failure 700xl | Don Crano | Gateway Computers | 6 | November 18th 03 01:39 AM |