Re: Virus? USB 500GB external hard disk is now "raw format"

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by ralph, Nov 25, 2008.

  1. ralph

    ralph Guest

    On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 09:38:17 +0900, Johnw wrote:

    > Disk Investigator
    > http://www.theabsolute.net/sware/dskinv.html
    >
    > ADRC Data Recovery Software Tools
    > http://www.adrc.com/software/data_recovery_tools


    Here is where I am.

    The controller is good and the disk itself has not crashed.
    So I created a systemrecoverycd boot cd which can freely recover all
    photographs regardless of the fat32 tables.

    The dd took 7 hours but now I have a duplicate disk to work with (keeping
    the original pristine).

    I'm looking up the photo-recovery feature of the latest systemrecoverycd.
    ralph, Nov 25, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. ralph

    Johnw Guest

    ralph was thinking very hard :
    > Here is where I am.
    > The controller is good and the disk itself has not crashed.
    > So I created a systemrecoverycd boot cd which can freely recover all
    > photographs regardless of the fat32 tables.
    > The dd took 7 hours but now I have a duplicate disk to work with (keeping
    > the original pristine).
    > I'm looking up the photo-recovery feature of the latest systemrecoverycd.


    Thanks Ralph, good luck.
    Johnw, Nov 25, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. ralph

    ralph Guest

    On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 02:10:42 +0900, Johnw wrote:
    >> I'm looking up the photo-recovery feature of the latest systemrecoverycd.

    >
    > Thanks Ralph, good luck.


    Thanks for the encouragement. It's not done yet but I haven't given up
    either. The new PhotoRec freeware seems perfect for recovering lost
    photographs and MP3 files (of which I had many on that lost disk).
    http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/PhotoRec

    The dd command after booting to the systemrecoverycd I used was:

    % tail /var/log/messages (which told me sdb was the 500MB & sdc was 1TB)
    % date
    % dd if=/dev/sdb of=/dev/sdc bs=4096k; date

    The result, 7 hours later, was a copy of the original disk sdb
    119235 records in
    119235 records out
    500107862016 bytes (500 GB) copied, 25203.6s, 19 MB/s

    I am not sure what to do with the systemrecoverycd but I noticed it still
    thinks the sdc is 1 terabyte (which surprised me as everyone said it would
    "look" like 500 megabytes at this time).

    If all my attempts to salvage the file allocation tables fail (I'm really
    not sure how to proceed at this point as I do not know Linux), I can at
    least run the new photo recovery cd program which saves lost photos and MP3
    files (and many other formats) even from a dead disk
    http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/File_Formats_Recovered_By_PhotoRec

    So the summary is that I have a copy of my original disk but don't know
    what to do next. Am looking.
    ralph, Nov 25, 2008
    #3
  4. ralph

    Guest

    In rec.photo.digital ralph <> wrote:

    | I am not sure what to do with the systemrecoverycd but I noticed it still
    | thinks the sdc is 1 terabyte (which surprised me as everyone said it would
    | "look" like 500 megabytes at this time).

    Can you get a web page that gives specifications for the EXACT model of drive
    you actually have? I'm wondering if maybe its one of those boxes that has 2
    drives of 500 GB, and arranges them in a RAID configuration, and the RAID
    configuration somehow got changed from level 1 (mirrored presenting a single
    500GB space) to level 0 (concatenated presenting all the space as 1 TB).

    It may be that the RAID is done in Windows driver software, and then Linux
    will NOT see that configuration. Maybe Windows doesn't see it now, either.

    --
    |WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
    | by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
    | Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
    | Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |
    , Nov 30, 2008
    #4
  5. ralph

    Franklin Guest

    On Sun 30 Nov08 20:07, <> wrote in
    <news:>:

    > In rec.photo.digital ralph <> wrote:
    >
    >| I am not sure what to do with the systemrecoverycd but I noticed it
    >| still thinks the sdc is 1 terabyte (which surprised me as everyone
    >| said it would "look" like 500 megabytes at this time).
    >
    > Can you get a web page that gives specifications for the EXACT model
    > of drive you actually have? I'm wondering if maybe its one of those
    > boxes that has 2 drives of 500 GB, and arranges them in a RAID
    > configuration, and the RAID configuration somehow got changed from
    > level 1 (mirrored presenting a single 500GB space) to level 0
    > (concatenated presenting all the space as 1 TB).
    >
    > It may be that the RAID is done in Windows driver software, and then
    > Linux will NOT see that configuration. Maybe Windows doesn't see it
    > now, either.
    >


    Hi Phil, this situation seems to be getting more and more involved!

    Surely the FIRST thing to do is post (crosspost if appropriate) to the
    IBM storage group. This will be to the chagrin of some regular posters
    in ACF.

    Next is NOT to blindly run a defrag, scandisk or fdisk in hope that one
    of them might do something useful because they can each cause damage in
    this situation.

    Then, as you say, restore the MBR. Apart from the Microsoft partition ID
    sig, all the MBR can probably be recovered if there are still partitions
    on the drive at all. The Storage group can advise what automated
    software they will talk him thru. Svend provides Findpart (which is
    freeware) but his tools often need reasonable user expertise.

    http://www.partitionsupport.com/utilities.htm

    I'll assume the PBS is ok although it seems this drive has had a failure
    in both system areas and file areas. Next is a choice between (a)
    checking which of the two FATs is in the best condition and ISTR Findpart
    may also do this or (b) seeing what damaged sectors there are.

    There are lots of architectural limits occurring here. I forget all the
    details: XP will access the hard drive itself even beyond the 137 GB
    limit but ISTR version 6.22 of MS's Fdisk/format wont create or format a
    partition bigger than 32GB but version 7 will. Either could be on a W98
    system. MS's Scandisk & defrag are limited to 127 GB. The W98 system
    may not be able to see beyond 137 GB of the drive (48 bit LBA arrived
    with ATA-6). So who knows what happened as part of this HDD's setup or
    how it managed to work in practise. The lost clusters now being picked
    up by scandisk are not a good sign because they might have been needed in
    a repair.

    To have a guess *maybe* this drive has been moved between systems with
    different HDD addressing conventions or there has been some unwelcome
    changes made in the motherboard settings. Or maybe surface damage
    instead that didn't automatically get mapped out for some reason.

    The Storage group might talk the OP thru this. I've seen Svend walk a
    user thru recovery but that was some years ago and he may not be able to
    now.
    Franklin, Nov 30, 2008
    #5
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. WCH

    NTFS or FAT32 for 500GB external drive?

    WCH, Mar 18, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    1,921
    Don_Luciano
    Mar 19, 2006
  2. WCH

    500GB LaCie external HD problem

    WCH, Jun 16, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    631
    Meat Plow
    Jun 16, 2007
  3. Johnw
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    767
    Johnw
    Nov 26, 2008
  4. Johnw
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    436
  5. William Brown

    WD SE 500gb USB Hard Drive Cheap

    William Brown, Jan 25, 2011, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    648
    Richard
    Jan 27, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page