Hi Scott, Wow, no, I did not see that at all! Sorry for seemingly ignoring you for days, now. Not sure whether it's my gmail account or something... Weird. Probably because I messed up my replies in the beginning.
(replying to the points raised in that email since they also answer your current questions) > Both finished logs showed something interesting, in that there were many > small errors in what could almost be considered a spiral pattern Yeah, that's pretty much exactly the thing with my drive - it seems like all bad sectors found are 512 Bytes. > The fun part was that the filesystem (it was an NTFS disk) was so messed up > that nothing would mount it Maybe I got lucky there since I was using ext3. > even testdisk failed to find a large portion of the files. So be prepared to > use something more robust than testdisk (like R-Studio) if you go through > with the rest of the recovery. Yeah, that really is the scary part - Since we're talking about 1TB of DSLR files (.JPG, .MOV) and music (flac, mp3) each, I would really like to see this mounted. I have 'rescued' a number of disks for other people and losing all the nice meta-data (directories etc.) would be... quite a bummer. The music stuff I would probably just have to redo from my CD collection... *sigh* > ddrutility >From what I understand that is mostly about your case, rescuing ntfs partitions? Or would it help in my case as well? > Third, I am interested in a copy of your logfile if possible. Actually I > would like the first one you sent to Antonio if you still have it, and also > your current one. Sure thing. Will send them along in a separate message. cheers, David On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 1:25 AM, Scott Dwyer <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi David, > > First, did you see my reply with my 2 cents? It contained some info (my > opinion) as to what might have happened to your drive, and what you might > expect (from my experience). I only replied to the bug list, so if you did > not see it then you will have to look into the archives which can be found > through the ddrescue page. > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-ddrescue/ > > Second, while errors are skipped, every error takes time to process, first > by the drive itself and then that is multiplied by any op system retries > (from what I can tell in linux from observation, it is about 15 retries > normally, or 5 retries using the direct option). So if the drive takes 3 > seconds per error, then it would take 15 seconds with the direct option to > process the error, or 45 seconds without the direct option. I used 3 seconds > for the drive as that is about an average from a few drives I have seen, but > that is dependent on the drive itself. Doing a little math on that means > that at 15 seconds per error, you could process about 5760 errors per day. > And you are going to have a LOT of errors by the looks of it, so you are in > for a long recovery. But don't be too discouraged just yet. You will have > many errors spread all over, but there is still a chance that you will end > up with 99% of good sectors vs bad, not to say that file recovery will be > easy when done. What file system is this? Is is NTFS? What type of files > will you be trying to recover? > > Third, I am interested in a copy of your logfile if possible. Actually I > would like the first one you sent to Antonio if you still have it, and also > your current one. > > Scott > > > > On 2/3/2014 5:00 PM, David Deutsch wrote: >> >> Close to breaking 1750GB, too. I think this kills the "1/8 of the disc >> is dead" idea, ie. one platter/side or read head being dead. Still >> curious what could produce such a regular error, though. Particularly >> across the entire space of the disc. Or maybe I just have no frigging >> clue how hard discs werk (I really don't). >> >> Reading still progresses in a steady pace in general, although it's >> kind of weird: It only reads every two to three minutes, sometimes up >> to ten. Not sure whether that is the drive hardware failing more, in >> general (though speeds improving would say otherwise) or just the >> general issue with bad sectors. Then again: Shouldn't it just skip >> past those? Or are the sectors around the bad ones just hard to get >> anything out of? > > _______________________________________________ Bug-ddrescue mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-ddrescue
