PCB BIOS and FLASH swap

[zvit]

ok. I will do this first thing in the morning (in about 11 hours from now)

[zvit]

I couldn't get a project copy to scan; I tried both "reset log" and "reset status." When I reopen the project, it's set at 0 and the status said "phase 1" but when I click "start," it immediately changes to "finished" and popup says scan finished.

So I had to create a new project. Attached new project log and terminal (15 minutes) at 8 cluster 8.

Attachments

Final-6 - maximus-text-3-try02-terminal.txt

(31.47 KiB) Downloaded 818 times

Final-6 - maximus-text-3-try02-log.txt

(11.65 KiB) Downloaded 714 times

[maximus]

I am not sure what happened where you were unable to perform the test with the original log. But the new project gave the information I was looking for. From some of the previous data it looked like maybe some data could be read from the "bad" head with a smaller cluster size, but the test with the smaller cluster size did not read any data from that head. I think I am done asking for tests now. If I had the drive in my possession, I would throw some things at it like some different timing settings, but nothing worth going back and forth about with long distance communication.

[zvit]

If I had the drive in my possession, I would throw some things at it like some different timing settings, but nothing worth going back and forth about with long distance communication.

No problem. Thank you very much maximus. If you DO want anymore testing for your own software improvement purposes, feel free to shoot me an email.

Everyone here said that any professional's first step would be to convert to SATA. What would the reason for this be if not for speed?

You can't compare hddsuperclone @ $20 to pc3000, which is closer to $10,000. One is a software imager the other a DR hardware/software solution. The resets are because the drive is struggling to read (dead/weak/damaged head- whatever term you like) changing the method is reads by wont help it read but it changes the level of control you have over what happens when it can't.

When you say "control," do you mean like disabling the bad head during scan so that you don't risk further damage to the hdd and it dying during the recovery process? It was said here that if the drive doesn't die during the scan, HddSuperScan could probably extract a little less than 1% more in phase 2 (about 8GB.) If so, would it be correct to say that the only difference in my case between HddSuperScan and P3K would be eliminated risk but that they both would extract the same amount of data (since they both wouldn't be reading the bad head?)

[zvit]

If I had the drive in my possession, I would throw some things at it like some different timing settings, but nothing worth going back and forth about with long distance communication.

No problem. Thank you very much maximus. If you DO want anymore testing for your own software improvement purposes, feel free to shoot me an email.

Everyone here said that any professional's first step would be to convert to SATA. What would the reason for this be if not for speed?

You can't compare hddsuperclone @ $20 to pc3000, which is closer to $10,000. One is a software imager the other a DR hardware/software solution. The resets are because the drive is struggling to read (dead/weak/damaged head- whatever term you like) changing the method is reads by wont help it read but it changes the level of control you have over what happens when it can't.

When you say "control," do you mean like disabling the bad head during scan so that you don't risk further damage to the hdd and it dying during the recovery process? It was said here that if the drive doesn't die during the scan, HddSuperScan could probably extract a little less than 1% more in phase 2 (about 8GB.) If so, would it be correct to say that the only difference in my case between HddSuperScan and P3K would be eliminated risk but that they both would extract the same amount of data (since they both wouldn't be reading the bad head?)

In other words, converting to sata for HddSuperScan would have absolutely no benefit to me?

[pepe]

Not much. Moreover, you would face the problem that the additional data would be crypted, so you could not just simply clone those areas into the same image.

I still have an incomfortable feeling when i think about this job. It could have been so simple and yet you overcomplicate it

pepe

[zvit]

Not much. Moreover, you would face the problem that the additional data would be crypted, so you could not just simply clone those areas into the same image.

I still have an incomfortable feeling when i think about this job. It could have been so simple and yet you overcomplicate it

pepe

Neh, the job has been over a week ago. Now I'm just in the educational phase.
About decryption, yes, I know that can be an issue. First, we don't know if my drive is encrypted yet. Second, maximum mentioned some reallymine software to decrypt, but in any case, I know it would be an issue.

I read a workaround somewhere else that suggested:

you can buy an identical drive from the exact same full model and convert it to SATA as well. Then you restore the image back to it as sectors (it would be like cloning your damaged drive to an equal one by SATA). Then you replace the PCB with the USB version and it should decrypt the data.

p.s.: Do you know what "control" Larman was talking about? Did he mean control over disabling the bad head from the scan?

[Lardman]

It could have been so simple and yet you overcomplicate it

Now I'm curious - AFAICS he had a firmware issue and a dead head; it took a while to understand what the drive was telling him (is that what you're meaning)? I don't think the actual recovery solution could have been made less complicated without a head swap - could it?

p.s.: Do you know what "control" Larman was talking about? Did he mean control over disabling the bad head from the scan?

Yep and a more granular control over drive timeouts and more detailed information as to the drive fault without trashing it.

Maximus's research on rebuild assist looked promising for this sort of thing, I'll be going over my test disks to see if I have a drive which supports it.

[pepe]

yeah, there's plenty of ways to decrypt, there are usb bridge boards using the same bridge IC for example. Your problem is that now you have a decrypted image which you don't want to mix with a crypted one. I don't know any free solution you could use to resolve this one apart from writing such soft yourself.

I think Lardman was refering to resets and using pio mode ...

[pepe]

I don't think the actual recovery solution could have been made less complicated without a head swap - could it?

No, but with head swap, it could have been done in hours - probably.
pepe

[zvit]

I don't know any free solution you could use to resolve this one apart from writing such soft yourself.

Maybe I will... I am actually a software engineer programmer.

[maximus]

Maximus's research on rebuild assist looked promising for this sort of thing, I'll be going over my test disks to see if I have a drive which supports it.

Don't bother with USB drives, it could never be supported through USB and there would be no reason for manufacturers to make it an option on a USB drive. The rebuild assist feature requires direct AHCI mode. I still don't know how effective it will be.