Want to clone failing western digital drive

C

computerdoc

Member
Reaction score
4
My old computer died with something burning out in the motherboard. I took out the hard drive and connected it to another computer using a usb connection. The computer reported that the drive could not be used until it was formatted. I tried a couple of times to reconnect and one time the data actually appeared with some problems. Right now it will not come up without some setting of the mbr but I don't want to write to it while it has problems.

What program should I use to get at the data and copy it to another drive?
 
Do not try "find and mount", unless you are running it against the clone.

With the WD drive, start with this.

1. remove and inspect the PCB...any signs of burn means that it needs to be replaced...with a donor reprogrammed with the original ROM

2. get a full sector-by-sector clone of the drive with ddrescue, if you run into ANY issues, stop and seek the assistance of a data recovery professional

3. if the clone does not automatically give access to the user data, confirm that it isn't encrypted and then run a software recovery program such as R-Studio

If you'd like to give me a call, I'd be happy to further discuss safe options.

Luke
 
Since I have a backup of the drive until May, it may not pay for me to pay for recovery at this time.

I am waiting for a replacement drive with which I will try to clone the drive using ddrescue as lcoughey suggested.
 
Not disagreeing with the data recovery professionals at all. But . .;)

This isn't a client's drive, it's his own. There's (apparently) no question about it being encrypted or not. He isn't actually trying to repair anything nor is his end goal a useable image. He wants to recover some files from a drive that is spinning up and being recognized, just not accessible by normal means.

I've experienced situations where the very act of cloning pushes a drive over the edge from "failing" to "failed" with what's been recovered as a result of the clone attempt being useless (or at least not the most important data).

There are times when you have a limited window of opportunity to snag the most important file(s) - which are usually megabytes and quickly copied rather than gigabytes requiring hours of drive thrashing to recover.

Cranking a failing drive for long periods to get a clone, if a clone or LARGE amounts of recovered data isn't actually the goal, may not be the right decision.

That's where I've found "Find and Mount" to be a great tool. Not every data recovery event requires heroic measures. In fact, most of them don't. And this might be one of those situations - only the OP can decide for sure.
 
I am waiting for a replacement drive with which I will try to clone the drive using ddrescue as lcoughey suggested.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear: any drive of the same or equal size is fine for cloning to, it doesn't need to be a same model or anything.

@mraikes: I'm not sure it is being recognized (at least not consistently). It's possible a drive could fail during cloning, but when you clone from sector 0 to last sector, the heads are moving smoothly from one end to the other. Recovering files and connecting to a OS means the heads will be jumping all around the drive, which is much more risky.

Also, when we clone a drive, especially if the drive is very bad, we'll target the important files first (but still in such a way where it starts at the first sectors on the drive and moves to the end in a straight line -- not jumping all around the drive). I don't believe it's possible to "target-clone" without a DDI or equivalent.

There really shouldn't be any "thrashing" when cloning a drive (at least not for long if you're doing it right). The idea is to recover all the good (non-thrashing) sectors first, quickly, and easily. Then you go back and try the bad sections.

Even for just one file, I believe a full clone is safer, if you can't "target clone," (it's VERY rare that we have a drive fail when cloning, like less than .01%, although we are probably cloning using tools which make things "safer" for the drive than something like ddrescue; disabling parts of the firmware and experience helps too of course ;)).

Not every data recovery event requires heroic measures.
Click to expand...

True, but I would counter that the SAFEST recovery does require such measures.
 
300DDR said:
True, but I would counter that the SAFEST recovery does require such measures.
Click to expand...

No argument there!

The thing is, many of us here regularly perform data recoveries to our client's satisfaction without actually being "data recovery companies" like you and lcoughey.

It just seems that you experts (term used respectfully, not in a snide manner) occasionally forget that sometimes "good enough" is "good enough". In a Venn diagram the intersection of Budget<->Data Value<->Risk often falls on a simpler approach, rather than a more complicated one.

Plus it's rare that us amateurs get ourselves into so much trouble that you experts aren't able to backstop us and pull a rabbit out of a hat when needed. :-)
 
I did a ddrescue on a failing drive according to the recommendations that I got here in the forum that it was safe and retried bad areas and it went very well. I am surprised to here that ddrescue might not be considered a safe clone.

My plan is to do a full clone to a much larger drive, take the data that I need off and then reuse the large drive for backup.
 
It's probably the safest way to clone, but just when compared to being able to target specific files when cloning, it's a little less so.
 
mraikes said:
The thing is, many of us here regularly perform data recoveries to our client's satisfaction without actually being "data recovery companies" like you and lcoughey.
Click to expand...
Yes, but it only takes one botched case and then you are getting sued.
mraikes said:
It just seems that you experts (term used respectfully, not in a snide manner) occasionally forget that sometimes "good enough" is "good enough". In a Venn diagram the intersection of Budget<->Data Value<->Risk often falls on a simpler approach, rather than a more complicated one.
Click to expand...
Are you letting your client make the decision on the risk? On top of that, are you making the client understand that your efforts could take a $350 recovery and turn it into recovery that costs more than $1000?
mraikes said:
Plus it's rare that us amateurs get ourselves into so much trouble that you experts aren't able to backstop us and pull a rabbit out of a hat when needed. :-)
Click to expand...
Are you honest with the client and let them know that you are the reason for the higher lab price and that you are going to cover the cost of your mistakes?
 
I am using the gparted version. The bad drive doesn't come up with any file system (ntfs, fat etc.). I am thinking of using

ddrescue -f -r 3 {bad drive device name} {clone device name} (log device}/ddlog.txt
 
lcoughey said:
Yes, but it only takes one botched case and then you are getting sued.

Are you letting your client make the decision on the risk? On top of that, are you making the client understand that your efforts could take a $350 recovery and turn it into recovery that costs more than $1000?

Are you honest with the client and let them know that you are the reason for the higher lab price and that you are going to cover the cost of your mistakes?
Click to expand...

Well first of all, I do cover the cost of my mistakes. I've dipped into my own pocket, sometimes painfully, to make things right more than once when I've screwed something up. But that's never been a data recovery.

Your bread is buttered by making every recovery attempt of any kind seem risky, dangerous, likely to fail and absolutely irresponsible without your approved process being followed. But that's not the reality for many of us out here. That being said - quick poll - how many "regular" computer repair people here have actually been sued over a data recovery gone bad? Of course it's happened to someone, somewhere . . . but that doesn't mean it's likely. FUD doesn't have to rule every thread pertaining to data recovery.

It doesn't much matter whether a recovery is $350 or $1,000; That's the point - many (many, many) recoveries are for people who are unable or unwilling to spend even $350. The data simply isn't worth it. But that doesn't mean they aren't willing to pay some lesser amount. And if the files aren't recoverable by more modest and economical means - then that's life and they accept the risk. There are no guarantees in data recovery - even from you.

It may be that your viewpoint is different because you ARE a data recovery professional and are approached by those for whom data IS more important than the cost of recovery. But in the scheme of all the failing hard drives in the world, those customers aren't the norm.

You're serving prime rib and t-bone steaks in your restaurant. I'm serving burgers and fries. I'm not pretending otherwise to you or my clients. But my point from the beginning is that more often than not burgers and fries are good enough.
 
mraikes said:
......snip.....
You're serving prime rib and t-bone steaks in your restaurant. I'm serving burgers and fries. I'm not pretending otherwise to you or my clients. But my point from the beginning is that more often than not burgers and fries are good enough.
Click to expand...

Dammit! Now I'm hungry.....and all I have in the shop right now is half a bag of pork rinds and some V8 juice. :D

Seriously though, you make a valid point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Rigo
Supermicro server X11SPL-F ~1 RAID OS drive failed
2
Replies
23
Views
1K
Sky-Knight
Sky-Knight
johnrobert
Cant read SSD
Replies
16
Views
1K
Joep
Joep
HCHTech
Quickbooks Enterprise 2024 multi-user issues
Replies
7
Views
633
Markverhyden
Markverhyden
Metanis
[TIP] Automatic updates to digital wallets!
Replies
1
Views
259
britechguy
britechguy
Velvis
Recommendations for a temp offsite solution
Replies
9
Views
458
YeOldeStonecat
YeOldeStonecat
Back
Top