Sorry if this post belongs in the Software section, I'm not sure. It's my first post here.

I'm just starting to learn about the world of data recovery and have already had about 20+ successful recoveries from various desktop / laptop drives.

Right now I'm only doing logical recovery, but have had great success just by using:

Testdisk / Photorec
Data Rescue II
Disk Warrior
Knoppix
R-Studio
Ontrack Pro
Active @


Now my general plan of attack has been just attaching the drive via usb to my computer, checking to see if I can access the data, copy the most valuable information the client wants first, then going back to get whatever else is left.

The problem is that I usually have to deal with most often is bad sectors.

I know that I can "sort of" skip bad sectors when using R-Studio but is there a simpler way to just skip bad sectors period.

I'd like to grab all the good stuff the first run, then focus on the problem areas.

I was thinking that I should probably image the drive FIRST, then recover the data, but I also don't want to waste a bunch of time imaging a 500gb+ drive every single time I'm trying to just pull a few gigs of information off it.

So say for instance I'm recovering someone's mp3's and there are 5,000 of them. And only like 20 of them are bad. When I go to copy them the whole process is stopped dead in it's tracks by my OS (XP) once I hit a speed bump.

Sometimes I can get by using Ubuntu's Konqueror which will usually allow me to just skip bad files, but not always.

Is there a program or a terminal command that will help me to overcome this?

Thanks in advance!!!!

Also are there any other programs I should look into?

As of now I don't have a desktop so everything is usb, otherwise I'd run MHDD, Victoria, and HDDSCAN.

Thanks again!

You mentioned r-studio... you can mark all of the relevant files and tell the program to skip the file if it hits a bad sector. On drives with file table damage, etc, you will definitely need to image first.

_________________
You don't have to backup all of your files, just the ones you want to keep.

Skipping the image step is a poor practice, and you are doing your clients a great disservice.

It's not unusual for us to receive a drive that a tech has killed by using so-called recovery programs on it.

Do your own research. If you are diligent, you will find what you need to know.

_________________
http://www.datasaversllc.com

There are hardware tools or you can build your own that can do the job but they cost money, money, money... No, eh?

Thanks to everyone who has replied so far.

First, I'd like to say that I understand the importance of imaging the drive as a general practice and how lots of "techs" end up creating more problems by running intensive data recovery software like Ontrack's Recovery Pro.

I know better than to let the drive scan for hours and hours when it's failling.

If I've got weak heads and I've only got one chance to remove the files I don't want to start by imaging gigs and gigs, I just want the files as quickly as possible.

Hopefully that makes sense.

There are pros-and-cons to most everything, and sometimes it is hard to predict the outcome of a recovery task until it's completed.

As I see it (others may disagree) here's a couple of problems with your method vs. the benefits of imaging:

1. Copying data off of a failing drive is stressful to the drive. The heads have to oscillate between the directory and the data area; at the same time it may be updating S.M.A.R.T., various logs, or trying to reassign bad sectors. If there is a "hiccup" with the reassignment process, etc. then things can get ugly in a hurry. For example, an overflowing G-List can corrupt vital modules.

2. Most imaging software / hardware works in a "linear" fashion, i.e. from beginning to end without butterfly activity. With better products, you can disable SMART, skip bad sectors, etc.

3. What do you do if a file you are looking for is not delineated by a proper directory or file table entry? The benefit of imaging is that you can look for these missing files. If you are depending upon a damaged directory to locate everything . . . can you see the problem?

4. You can make additional copies of an image and do anything you like to them, without risking the data on the original (source) drive.

5. The basic principle is like the Hippocratic Oath - do no harm to the patient! And don't do anything to a drive that limits data recovery options.

Considering these points, what are the arguments in favor of your "method?"

Jono

_________________
http://www.datasaversllc.com

I suggest you partner with a data recovery lab who is willing to work with you in better supporting your clients. For us, we have many partners who will call us up, ask for advice and discuss a game plan together. In most case, just the same, we prefer to clone the drive before too much stress is caused.

It is better to send it to a professional lab with all the right tools and get a quote. If the price is too high for the client, you have nothing to lose. However, so often, we find that the tech turns what could have been a $500 with a 99% chance of success into a $2500 quote with less than a 50% chance of success.

_________________
Luke
Recovery Force Data Recovery

Always the same... Money, money, money...

Really? Often it's simple ignorance or incompetence, or laziness . . . take your pick.

_________________
http://www.datasaversllc.com

In fact it was sarcastic

Is it possible to do a head exchange on a drive with bad sectors, before an image is performed?

I have seagate barracuda 7200.9 160gb desktop drive that has bad sectors. Everytime the head encounters the sectors, the head does a little "dance" before it moves on to the next. My first plan was to image it, but i've had experience imaging drives with bad sectors and once the bad sector is encountered, the imaging process halts.

The tools used for imaging are getdataback and winhex. There tools are notorious for halting when bad sectors are encountered. What do you recommend?