Seagate 320gb Thin platter swap

[senordingdong]

Hello,

I hope someone can offer some advice.

I have a Segate 320gb this 2.5" drive. The top head was stuck to the platter and damaged beyond use.

No visible damage to the platter.

This is a single platter drive, and i have done this type of swap successfully several times with different drives.

I obtained an identical (2 month apart manufacturing date) drive and swapped the platter. The identical drive worked correctly before the swap. The swap was done in a reasonabley clean environment, and i am confident in that much of the attempted repair.

In addition i have swapped the board over. The drive just clicks, and after a long while shows up as 1.44PB (OS X) but as you can imagine is not useable.

Sometimes it shows up as 320gb raw, but is not accessible, Dmesg shows input output error.

I have also used the donor PCB with the ROM from the original drive. Same results.

I can make the clicking slightly better or worse by changing the torque on the screw the goes through the case and into the head stack. But at no point does it become usable. is there some kind of calibration to be done in this regard?

I hooked into the UART port and am able to get info such as serial number and whatnot. It shows SATA reset every few seconds. and shows read errors. I can spin up and down successfully.

I have dumped the SPI ROMS from the pcb for both boards and intend to compare them and hope something jumps out at me.

I am thinking this may have something to do with the adaptive calibration for the head on the donor drive not matching the original platter, but this is just a suspicion and I'm not sure where this info is located in the ROM anyway.


Can anyone offer anything in the way of help on this? I would be eternally grateful.

Thank You

[jono-ats]

Doing a platter swap because the heads are bad is like changing your house to match the mailbox.

There is no head-claibration-with-head-screw-torque adjustment. What you are seeing is likely an artifact.

Post the terminal output message -- it will help others to help you.

Jono

[senordingdong]

Understood. It seemed like the easier thing to do, and as i said i had done it successfully in the past.

Well anyway. it eventually calmed down. it is not reading, but not making noise anymore.

Ive dug into the firmware files, as well as pulled the RAP and SAP over the UART port.

I was abale to pull the chunk of HEX that is the the RAP super file and the SAP out of the native firmware dump, and replaced the appropriate sections in the firmware that matches the platter. Chip is burning now. My immediate thought is there may be checksum issues, but it was a 1 to 1 byte replacement including module checksum so i am hopeful.

If this fails, i will gladly post any kind of log that can be helpful. Is there anything specific that is of value in this?

[senordingdong]

Just an update. As somewhat expected booting the modified firmware yielded a checksum error out of the UART.

Does anyone have any info on how the checksum is generated?

error message is

Sphinx Boot ROM 1.0
Serial FLASH boot code checksum failure

[jermy]

One thing I don't understand, if you changed the platter AND the PCB, what RAP and SAP have you took ? the donors ?

[senordingdong]

The only original part on the donor drive is the heads. the platter and PCB were swapped from the one i would like to get the data off of.

My assumption of why i am unsuccessful is that the adaptive data from the pub does not match the actual function of the head and thus us not reading correctly.

Unfortunately any change made to the rom image wont boot due to the checksum failure.

I will post my terminal output shortly

[jermy]

Then fix the checksum, problem solved

[senordingdong]

I was getting read errors regarding LBA, but oddly now I'm getting this.


The drive now consistantly shows up as 0b but identify itself by model number correctly to the OS

Rst 0x10M
M_FT_IF_MC_Mct_Init_Fail 1
[PORFAIL:MC.disabled]

[senordingdong]

Then fix the checksum, problem solved

Sadly i am not able to find any information on what the checksum algorithm may be. I ran the firmware dumps through 96 common and not so common algorithms and none returned the same checksum as the firmware file.

If you (or anyone else) have any information on this, i would love to hear it.

[Amarbir[CDR-Labs]]

Well,
Whats a Bad and Wrong Way Of solving a Problem .Stop Reading Too Many Technical Posts Which is Basically Is Research And Not Used for Majority of DR Work

[senordingdong]

In the interest of learning, would you be so kind as to briefly explain what method should have been taken?

With a physically ruined head, i would think the only possible repair would be a head swap, and with a single platter drive i would think a platter swap would be equivalent.

Thank You.

[jono-ats]

As an aside, is your drive still spinning? Does it click, and /or spin down?

* * *

Competent recovery work entails: 1) accurate diagnosis; 2) proper tools and techniques; 3) be efficient and concise, i.e. don't perform unnecessary steps, and minimize risk.

So let's look at what you've done:

1. You performed a platter instead of head swap (while it may be done that way, you've introduced a new possibility that the platter operation will be less than optimal) -- this runs contrary to #3.

2. You assumed that close dates would suffice for heads match. With Seagate, you usually must inspect sliders. See #2.

3. You operated outside of a clean room (a bad idea) -- contrary to #2 and added to risk (#3). We don't know if your head loading and unloading techniques are up to snuff.

4. When the drive failed to work with the donor parts, you didn't inspect the donor heads for damage. Nor did you put them back into the donor to see if they worked. (#1 & #2)

5. Comparing ROM codes was perhaps academic, but not very helpful (#3)

6. Migrating ROM adaptives probably wasn't necessary (although it could have been). The ROM checksum got corrupted in the process. (#1 & #3). Some may do it as a matter of course; I do it when something doesn't work well and I have ruled out other causes.

7. You have no idea what the Seagate terminal log entries mean (they are admittedly cryptic), and you haven't posted all of the log messages to the forum. You probably have firmware issues and well as physical / mechanical problems.

Shall I stop there?

[Amarbir[CDR-Labs]]

In the interest of learning, would you be so kind as to briefly explain what method should have been taken?

With a physically ruined head, i would think the only possible repair would be a head swap, and with a single platter drive i would think a platter swap would be equivalent.

Thank You.

Sir ,
Above Post Is a Granth " Book " In Itself .You Know something When a DR Lab in India Gets a Seagate Drive They Try so Many Internet Written Stuntsssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss That it Becomes a Sick Case .To The Number of Cases Of Seagate i Get In My Lab I Preform Some Basic analysis And Move Step By Step And The Issue is Solved .Many Labs Here Just Do This Clear Smart ,Clear Glist Regenerate Translator Without Understanding Heads Or Tails About The Necessity Of Any Operation .Right Now Also i am Working On 2 Cases One a Seagate And One a Toshiba On Pc 3000 UDMA-e and DFL SRP:All In One .Now Something is Seriously Wrong With the Drive ,Please Take Professional Help Locally At Least Now If you Need The Data .

PS : Gift The DR Guy The Untouched Original ROM Code Pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[data-medics]

As an aside, is your drive still spinning? Does it click, and /or spin down?

* * *

Competent recovery work entails: 1) accurate diagnosis; 2) proper tools and techniques; 3) be efficient and concise, i.e. don't perform unnecessary steps, and minimize risk.

So let's look at what you've done:

1. You performed a platter instead of head swap (while it may be done that way, you've introduced a new possibility that the platter operation will be less than optimal) -- this runs contrary to #3.

2. You assumed that close dates would suffice for heads match. With Seagate, you usually must inspect sliders. See #2.

3. You operated outside of a clean room (a bad idea) -- contrary to #2 and added to risk (#3). We don't know if your head loading and unloading techniques are up to snuff.

4. When the drive failed to work with the donor parts, you didn't inspect the donor heads for damage. Nor did you put them back into the donor to see if they worked. (#1 & #2)

5. Comparing ROM codes was perhaps academic, but not very helpful (#3)

6. Migrating ROM adaptives probably wasn't necessary (although it could have been). The ROM checksum got corrupted in the process. (#1 & #3). Some may do it as a matter of course; I do it when something doesn't work well and I have ruled out other causes.

7. You have no idea what the Seagate terminal log entries mean (they are admittedly cryptic), and you haven't posted all of the log messages to the forum. You probably have firmware issues and well as physical / mechanical problems.

Shall I stop there?

And this is why we have to charge more for cases where we can tell it's been worked on. I'm pretty sure the OP here is the guy some of my past clients were referring to when they said "my friend tried to fix it".

[data-medics]

with a single platter drive i would think a platter swap would be equivalent.

You assume incorrectly. Moving a platter creates all sorts of balancing and calibration issues that weren't originally there. While it may have worked fine back on an old 10MB drive, modern drives are really hard to get working after any platter movement. Even if it is just one. Platter swap is only ever a last resort if there's no other way to get it spinning up.

[senordingdong]

As an aside, is your drive still spinning? Does it click, and /or spin down?

* * *

Competent recovery work entails: 1) accurate diagnosis; 2) proper tools and techniques; 3) be efficient and concise, i.e. don't perform unnecessary steps, and minimize risk.

So let's look at what you've done:

1. You performed a platter instead of head swap (while it may be done that way, you've introduced a new possibility that the platter operation will be less than optimal) -- this runs contrary to #3.

2. You assumed that close dates would suffice for heads match. With Seagate, you usually must inspect sliders. See #2.

3. You operated outside of a clean room (a bad idea) -- contrary to #2 and added to risk (#3). We don't know if your head loading and unloading techniques are up to snuff.

4. When the drive failed to work with the donor parts, you didn't inspect the donor heads for damage. Nor did you put them back into the donor to see if they worked. (#1 & #2)

5. Comparing ROM codes was perhaps academic, but not very helpful (#3)

6. Migrating ROM adaptives probably wasn't necessary (although it could have been). The ROM checksum got corrupted in the process. (#1 & #3). Some may do it as a matter of course; I do it when something doesn't work well and I have ruled out other causes.

7. You have no idea what the Seagate terminal log entries mean (they are admittedly cryptic), and you haven't posted all of the log messages to the forum. You probably have firmware issues and well as physical / mechanical problems.

Shall I stop there?

I appreciate this information, it appears i assumed and made a difficult situation worse. Now i will know for the future.

That being said, on the topic of providing terminal output, i could very easily have provided pages of output, but i must admit i did not care for the condescending responses that were given to my questions, and at that point kind of gave up hope of getting any reasonable level of help from this forum.

I understand you fine folks are offering information, for free, and on your own time, but you may consider being a little more human about it. I feel i was as polite and as outwardly ignorant as possible when asking for assistance, and with the exception of the underlying information in your post i got nothing condescension and ridicule.

I guess all i'm saying, is, is that really necessary, and is that how you would like your legitimate attempts at information gathering treated.

[jono-ats]

If you feel that I was being condescending, I apologize. I thought it was pretty objective and impersonal, if you find it damning. I'll chalk up my interaction with you to "no good deed goes unpunished."

I think I gave useful info, to you or anyone else in a comparable predicament. Your mileage may vary.

When I get feedback like that when trying to be genuinely helpful, it makes me feel that I have a lot better things to do with my time. And I do.

[Amarbir[CDR-Labs]]

If you feel that I was being condescending, I apologize. I thought it was pretty objective and impersonal, if you find it damning. I'll chalk up my interaction with you to "no good deed goes unpunished."

I think I gave useful info, to you or anyone else in a comparable predicament. Your mileage may vary.

When I get feedback like that when trying to be genuinely helpful, it makes me feel that I have a lot better things to do with my time. And I do.

Jono,
I Seriously Think People Who Are Into DR For Good Should Maintain Very Good communications Between Each Other ,Sometimes knowledge dies with the person which is not not appreciated

[jono-ats]

Jono,
I Seriously Think People Who Are Into DR For Good Should Maintain Very Good communications Between Each Other ,Sometimes knowledge dies with the person which is not not appreciated

I'm willing to help other pros.

Jono

[werner]

Jono,
I Seriously Think People Who Are Into DR For Good Should Maintain Very Good communications Between Each Other ,Sometimes knowledge dies with the person which is not not appreciated

I'm willing to help other pros.

Jono

@jono-ats Hi Jono. Can't message you here. Please send me a message so we can chat privately. - Need assistance with a Crawford ST5000DM000. The drive has crucial data with no utilty assistance with PC3000. Thank you