August 8th, 2019, 0:41
$600 sounds very reasonable for one of these things, have done a few and they aren’t easy!
August 8th, 2019, 5:09
OR customers pay $600 ransom to recover data Seagate was responsible for losing
August 8th, 2019, 10:09
johnnyBrandom wrote:I'll accept that you are probably referring only to that being a reasonable cost for the task, and I might agree with that, but you are then ignoring a few influential circumstances here. Now, I'm not interested in debating this so hopefully I won't spawn a debate here, but I'll just offer you some food for thought from my perspective ...
Seagate doesn't care if you pay them or not. They sold you a hard drive without any data on it, they are more than happy to give you another one without data on it. Here you have tried to blend two distinct businesses again. Also you are asking that we believe you played no part in the failure, we are giving you that even though we know a big percentage of drive failures are caused by mishandling or accidents. It doesn't really matter what happened though, because Seagate sold you a storage device, not data protection services.johnnyBrandom wrote:Consider that Seagate sold me a drive that lasted fewer than 100hrs spread over about 1.5 years before failing and now they want me to pay them $600 (about 6x what the drive originally cost) to recover the two or three files that I didn't have backed up.
This is not reasonable or based in logic of any sort. Warranties exist because the potential for failure exist. The warranty is there to help make sales, if you know the product will be replaced if it fails then you might consider buying that one, not the one with less or no warranty. Automobiles fail under warranty ALL THE TIME. Sane people do not assume it will never need warranty service because it has a warranty.johnnyBrandom wrote:Consider that the drive has a 5 year warranty (warranty does not include data recovery). Is it reasonable to expect a drive with a 5 year warranty to last at least 5 years? I think so.
Doesn't sound like Seagate's problem at all.johnnyBrandom wrote:Consider that I might send it back for replacement under warranty if I was was 100% certain I will not ever want to recover any of the data - but I'm not. I can live without the 2-3 files I know I didn't back-up but I am not 100% certain I missed something else.
No, all manufacturers experience defects, failures, and returns, as well as product abuse, not just Seagate. You know this, but want to pretend it isn't so because you think it helps your argument. And Seagate does have to honor their warranty, you made another false claim. They will even honor the warranty after you have your data recovered. As to your question about "who", I will use the drive. Anyone that doesn't want to use their replacement drive from Seagata, WD, Samsung, HGST just let me know. If it's unopened I'll pay the shipping for you to send it my way (this offer is only good for the 50 states LOL)johnnyBrandom wrote:So Seagate gets away with selling defective merchandise and does not have to honor the warranty OR customers pay $600 ransom to recover data Seagate was responsible for losing OR Seagate honors the warranty, sends out a replacement drive to customers. Who will use that replacement? Only someone who wants to give Seagate $600 in a few months. Reasonable?
August 8th, 2019, 10:31
johnnyBrandom wrote:Consider that the drive has a 5 year warranty (warranty does not include data recovery). Is it reasonable to expect a drive with a 5 year warranty to last at least 5 years? I think so.
August 8th, 2019, 20:40
August 8th, 2019, 21:32
I propose disabling the 3.3V supply for the NAND flash chip.
August 8th, 2019, 22:02
August 8th, 2019, 23:36
August 9th, 2019, 3:05
fzabkar wrote:It's just my opinion, but ISTM that there is no excuse for a fault in the NAND cache to result in an inoperable drive, with consequential data loss. AISI, there should be a failsafe mechanism in the firmware to allow the drive to continue operating in cache-less, read-only mode, with full access to the data on the platters. Alternatively, the drive could initialise the NAND cache and continue working as normal. In both cases a warning could be communicated via a new, specially assigned SMART attribute. Such an approach would benefit both the user and the HDD manufacturer.
August 9th, 2019, 5:19
August 9th, 2019, 17:02
pepe wrote:Leaving the NAND unpowered will not help as it loads firmware from nand during powerup.
August 9th, 2019, 17:12
fzabkar wrote:pepe wrote:Leaving the NAND unpowered will not help as it loads firmware from nand during powerup.
Well, I suppose one way to reach a solution would be by brute force.
Take a donor drive, secure erase it, and then remove the NAND and dump its contents. Determine the structure of the firmware area.
Now dump the patient's NAND and manually "secure erase" it by initialising the non-firmware area. I'm assuming that nothing needs to be done to the ROM, although that would be easier to dump and analyse (eg with F3ROMexplorer freeware).
BTW, is there an equivalent non-hybrid model of this drive? If so, would it be possible to access the data by transplanting the ROM adaptives into such a non-hybrid donor?
August 9th, 2019, 17:14
pcimage wrote:But this is Seagate you’re talking about, a company that pushes data recovery insurance on its own drives and also has its own data recovery company! Really?
August 9th, 2019, 17:16
ddrecovery wrote:fzabkar wrote:pepe wrote:Leaving the NAND unpowered will not help as it loads firmware from nand during powerup.
Well, I suppose one way to reach a solution would be by brute force.
Sounds like $600 worth of work to me :wink:
August 9th, 2019, 17:26
fzabkar wrote:I would hope that a DR shop would know of a more elegant approach. Brute force is a last resort.
fzabkar wrote:Take a donor drive, secure erase it, and then remove the NAND and dump its contents. Determine the structure of the firmware area.
Now dump the patient's NAND and manually "secure erase" it by initialising the non-firmware area. I'm assuming that nothing needs to be done to the ROM, although that would be easier to dump and analyse (eg with F3ROMexplorer freeware).
August 9th, 2019, 17:47
ddrecovery wrote:fzabkar wrote:I would hope that a DR shop would know of a more elegant approach. Brute force is a last resort.
Indeed we do, but I was referring to the work involved in your suggested fix :wink:
Doomer wrote:I think there is no automatic unlock in PC3000 for this model right now but the drive can be unlocked in manual mode by AceLab tech support. However this particular drive won't be unlocked because it requires the drive to spin up and read FW from platters to complete the unlock procedure.
Right now there is no solution for this problem in PC3000, however if you are to submit your drive for recovery to Seagate they should have a solution, because they don't use PC3000 or other commercial tools for recovery.
August 9th, 2019, 17:55
fzabkar wrote:ddrecovery wrote:fzabkar wrote:I would hope that a DR shop would know of a more elegant approach. Brute force is a last resort.
Indeed we do, but I was referring to the work involved in your suggested fix
Now I'm confused. Is your shop able to handle this case?Doomer wrote:I think there is no automatic unlock in PC3000 for this model right now but the drive can be unlocked in manual mode by AceLab tech support. However this particular drive won't be unlocked because it requires the drive to spin up and read FW from platters to complete the unlock procedure.
Right now there is no solution for this problem in PC3000, however if you are to submit your drive for recovery to Seagate they should have a solution, because they don't use PC3000 or other commercial tools for recovery.
August 9th, 2019, 18:03
fzabkar wrote:That said, I suspect that the in-house solution to the OP's problem would involve a few keystrokes and a simple terminal command, presumably to initialise the NAND as in earlier firmware. If so, then how does that justify a price of US$600 ?
fzabkar wrote:Brute force is a last resort.
August 9th, 2019, 18:29
If so, then how does that justify a price of US$600 ?
August 9th, 2019, 18:48
Doomer wrote:fzabkar wrote:That said, I suspect that the in-house solution to the OP's problem would involve a few keystrokes and a simple terminal command, presumably to initialise the NAND as in earlier firmware. If so, then how does that justify a price of US$600 ?
This reminds me of an old joke
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.