Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
160 gb drives & data recovery software, beware!
Hi,
/* crossposted, "fut" to rec.audio.tech ... */ Please check the applicability of data recovery software with these drives prior to have to rely on it, I just lost a partion on such a drive in an unknown and un-understood error and the datarecovery software I tried - three different tools - insist that the drive is 128 gb and discard the os supplied geometry. You might want to rush slowly to that drive size and stay with 120 gb for easier problem solving if indeed it is a general problem that recovery software doesn't "do" larger drives .... I am quite happy that I got the great good idea of making order in the soundfile folder by copying all incarnations of it to that drive and that the few files I moved were recoverable via an undelete tool. It had been unpleasant to learn with unique files on the drive .... I don't know if it mattered that I had decided on having a fairly small (8205 megabytes) primary partition and the rest a secondary with a single logical drive, nor just how the entire secondary partition went missing, I will try again with just a single partition on the drive to see whether it is reproduceable, not having multiple parttions on a drive has previously been suggested as a workaround back when win95 osr 2.1 had "an issue" with large drives that was later solved by a recommended update. It is worthwhile mentioning that RAID'ing does not safeguard against such logical errors. Additional information, if anybody has any, on this issue appreciated, my new backing up to drive seems somewhat less useful than I had hoped. Note: I didn't say "don't do it" to the drive size, they are currently the cheapest pr. gigabyte, I just said "beware, short term an issue seems to exist, long term it will probably be solved". Kind regards Peter Larsen -- ******************************************* * My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk * ******************************************* |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
160 gb drives & data recovery software, beware!
In article ,
Peter Larsen wrote: Hi, /* crossposted, "fut" to rec.audio.tech ... */ Please check the applicability of data recovery software with these drives prior to have to rely on it, I just lost a partion on such a drive in an unknown and un-understood error and the datarecovery software I tried - three different tools - insist that the drive is 128 gb and discard the os supplied geometry. I don't know if it mattered that I had decided on having a fairly small (8205 megabytes) primary partition and the rest a secondary with a single logical drive, nor just how the entire secondary partition went missing, I will try again with just a single partition on the drive to see whether it is reproduceable, not having multiple parttions on a drive has previously been suggested as a workaround back when win95 osr 2.1 had "an issue" with large drives that was later solved by a recommended update. It is worthwhile mentioning that RAID'ing does not safeguard against such logical errors. Additional information, if anybody has any, on this issue appreciated, my new backing up to drive seems somewhat less useful than I had hoped. This is likely a BIOS / device-driver issue. The older ATA-5 command set is limited to using logical block addresses which will fit into 28 bits - large enough for 128 gibibytes or 137 gigabytes (depending on whether you prefer to count by twos or tens). Newer, larger drives support both the ATA-5 command set, and the newer ATA-6 commands which allow 48-bit logical block addresses. If you query a drive of this sort using the ATA-5 commands, it'll tell you that it's only 128 gibibytes, since that's the largest size whose value fits into the 28 bits available in the response field. In order to address the additional capacity, all of the software that you use must be able to use the ATA-6 commands. -- Dave Platt AE6EO Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
160 gb drives & data recovery software, beware!
In article ,
Peter Larsen wrote: Hi, /* crossposted, "fut" to rec.audio.tech ... */ Please check the applicability of data recovery software with these drives prior to have to rely on it, I just lost a partion on such a drive in an unknown and un-understood error and the datarecovery software I tried - three different tools - insist that the drive is 128 gb and discard the os supplied geometry. I don't know if it mattered that I had decided on having a fairly small (8205 megabytes) primary partition and the rest a secondary with a single logical drive, nor just how the entire secondary partition went missing, I will try again with just a single partition on the drive to see whether it is reproduceable, not having multiple parttions on a drive has previously been suggested as a workaround back when win95 osr 2.1 had "an issue" with large drives that was later solved by a recommended update. It is worthwhile mentioning that RAID'ing does not safeguard against such logical errors. Additional information, if anybody has any, on this issue appreciated, my new backing up to drive seems somewhat less useful than I had hoped. This is likely a BIOS / device-driver issue. The older ATA-5 command set is limited to using logical block addresses which will fit into 28 bits - large enough for 128 gibibytes or 137 gigabytes (depending on whether you prefer to count by twos or tens). Newer, larger drives support both the ATA-5 command set, and the newer ATA-6 commands which allow 48-bit logical block addresses. If you query a drive of this sort using the ATA-5 commands, it'll tell you that it's only 128 gibibytes, since that's the largest size whose value fits into the 28 bits available in the response field. In order to address the additional capacity, all of the software that you use must be able to use the ATA-6 commands. -- Dave Platt AE6EO Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
160 gb drives & data recovery software, beware!
In article ,
Peter Larsen wrote: Hi, /* crossposted, "fut" to rec.audio.tech ... */ Please check the applicability of data recovery software with these drives prior to have to rely on it, I just lost a partion on such a drive in an unknown and un-understood error and the datarecovery software I tried - three different tools - insist that the drive is 128 gb and discard the os supplied geometry. I don't know if it mattered that I had decided on having a fairly small (8205 megabytes) primary partition and the rest a secondary with a single logical drive, nor just how the entire secondary partition went missing, I will try again with just a single partition on the drive to see whether it is reproduceable, not having multiple parttions on a drive has previously been suggested as a workaround back when win95 osr 2.1 had "an issue" with large drives that was later solved by a recommended update. It is worthwhile mentioning that RAID'ing does not safeguard against such logical errors. Additional information, if anybody has any, on this issue appreciated, my new backing up to drive seems somewhat less useful than I had hoped. This is likely a BIOS / device-driver issue. The older ATA-5 command set is limited to using logical block addresses which will fit into 28 bits - large enough for 128 gibibytes or 137 gigabytes (depending on whether you prefer to count by twos or tens). Newer, larger drives support both the ATA-5 command set, and the newer ATA-6 commands which allow 48-bit logical block addresses. If you query a drive of this sort using the ATA-5 commands, it'll tell you that it's only 128 gibibytes, since that's the largest size whose value fits into the 28 bits available in the response field. In order to address the additional capacity, all of the software that you use must be able to use the ATA-6 commands. -- Dave Platt AE6EO Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
160 gb drives & data recovery software, beware!
In article ,
Peter Larsen wrote: Hi, /* crossposted, "fut" to rec.audio.tech ... */ Please check the applicability of data recovery software with these drives prior to have to rely on it, I just lost a partion on such a drive in an unknown and un-understood error and the datarecovery software I tried - three different tools - insist that the drive is 128 gb and discard the os supplied geometry. I don't know if it mattered that I had decided on having a fairly small (8205 megabytes) primary partition and the rest a secondary with a single logical drive, nor just how the entire secondary partition went missing, I will try again with just a single partition on the drive to see whether it is reproduceable, not having multiple parttions on a drive has previously been suggested as a workaround back when win95 osr 2.1 had "an issue" with large drives that was later solved by a recommended update. It is worthwhile mentioning that RAID'ing does not safeguard against such logical errors. Additional information, if anybody has any, on this issue appreciated, my new backing up to drive seems somewhat less useful than I had hoped. This is likely a BIOS / device-driver issue. The older ATA-5 command set is limited to using logical block addresses which will fit into 28 bits - large enough for 128 gibibytes or 137 gigabytes (depending on whether you prefer to count by twos or tens). Newer, larger drives support both the ATA-5 command set, and the newer ATA-6 commands which allow 48-bit logical block addresses. If you query a drive of this sort using the ATA-5 commands, it'll tell you that it's only 128 gibibytes, since that's the largest size whose value fits into the 28 bits available in the response field. In order to address the additional capacity, all of the software that you use must be able to use the ATA-6 commands. -- Dave Platt AE6EO Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
160 gb drives & data recovery software, beware!
Dave Platt wrote:
Please check the applicability of data recovery software with these drives prior to have to rely on it, I just lost a partion on such a drive in an unknown and un-understood error ... There are a few conditions for the safe use of that drive size - 160 gb - and if those are not met, then the partition that exceeds it can and will vanish without warning or error message - other than that it has gone missing - at the instant of the 28 bit address space being exceeded. This a brief excerpt of a very fine explanation received from Western Digital - not their drive, but their software also did not read its size correctly on the machine in question. The event log error is strange ... the machine complains about missing member of stripe or volume set, but when all bets are off, then indeed they *are* off and anything, it appears, can get logged to explain an unimagined, thus untrapped error. This is likely a BIOS / device-driver issue. Indeed, it should in my opinion have worked because the drive is on a highpoint 368 controller that appears to the OS as being scsi, but it was only to partion magic that the drive looked as it is. Once the primary partion was removed in diskmanager (nt4) then the drive looks like 128 gb in it, so it seems that the OS has told the recoverysoftware tried that "drive claims to be larger, but surely it is nonsense". In order to address the additional capacity, all of the software that you use must be able to use the ATA-6 commands. At least one of the suppliers of recovery software that I filed bugreports at say "uhm, we're working on just that right now ... ". Thank you for pointing me in the right direction Dave. It appears that I will have to put the drive in a usb-box to have benefit of its full size for backups, the "iron" of the old machine (p133) I had put it in does not support current OS versions, usb will probably be at least as fast anyway. Microsoft links suggested by western digital a http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;305098 and http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;303013 It appears that the attractiveness of 160 gb drives using current and/or moderately aged technology is modest for those that like to be able to move drive around freely. Dave Platt AE6EO Kind regards Peter Larsen -- ******************************************* * My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk * ******************************************* |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
160 gb drives & data recovery software, beware!
Dave Platt wrote:
Please check the applicability of data recovery software with these drives prior to have to rely on it, I just lost a partion on such a drive in an unknown and un-understood error ... There are a few conditions for the safe use of that drive size - 160 gb - and if those are not met, then the partition that exceeds it can and will vanish without warning or error message - other than that it has gone missing - at the instant of the 28 bit address space being exceeded. This a brief excerpt of a very fine explanation received from Western Digital - not their drive, but their software also did not read its size correctly on the machine in question. The event log error is strange ... the machine complains about missing member of stripe or volume set, but when all bets are off, then indeed they *are* off and anything, it appears, can get logged to explain an unimagined, thus untrapped error. This is likely a BIOS / device-driver issue. Indeed, it should in my opinion have worked because the drive is on a highpoint 368 controller that appears to the OS as being scsi, but it was only to partion magic that the drive looked as it is. Once the primary partion was removed in diskmanager (nt4) then the drive looks like 128 gb in it, so it seems that the OS has told the recoverysoftware tried that "drive claims to be larger, but surely it is nonsense". In order to address the additional capacity, all of the software that you use must be able to use the ATA-6 commands. At least one of the suppliers of recovery software that I filed bugreports at say "uhm, we're working on just that right now ... ". Thank you for pointing me in the right direction Dave. It appears that I will have to put the drive in a usb-box to have benefit of its full size for backups, the "iron" of the old machine (p133) I had put it in does not support current OS versions, usb will probably be at least as fast anyway. Microsoft links suggested by western digital a http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;305098 and http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;303013 It appears that the attractiveness of 160 gb drives using current and/or moderately aged technology is modest for those that like to be able to move drive around freely. Dave Platt AE6EO Kind regards Peter Larsen -- ******************************************* * My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk * ******************************************* |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
160 gb drives & data recovery software, beware!
Dave Platt wrote:
Please check the applicability of data recovery software with these drives prior to have to rely on it, I just lost a partion on such a drive in an unknown and un-understood error ... There are a few conditions for the safe use of that drive size - 160 gb - and if those are not met, then the partition that exceeds it can and will vanish without warning or error message - other than that it has gone missing - at the instant of the 28 bit address space being exceeded. This a brief excerpt of a very fine explanation received from Western Digital - not their drive, but their software also did not read its size correctly on the machine in question. The event log error is strange ... the machine complains about missing member of stripe or volume set, but when all bets are off, then indeed they *are* off and anything, it appears, can get logged to explain an unimagined, thus untrapped error. This is likely a BIOS / device-driver issue. Indeed, it should in my opinion have worked because the drive is on a highpoint 368 controller that appears to the OS as being scsi, but it was only to partion magic that the drive looked as it is. Once the primary partion was removed in diskmanager (nt4) then the drive looks like 128 gb in it, so it seems that the OS has told the recoverysoftware tried that "drive claims to be larger, but surely it is nonsense". In order to address the additional capacity, all of the software that you use must be able to use the ATA-6 commands. At least one of the suppliers of recovery software that I filed bugreports at say "uhm, we're working on just that right now ... ". Thank you for pointing me in the right direction Dave. It appears that I will have to put the drive in a usb-box to have benefit of its full size for backups, the "iron" of the old machine (p133) I had put it in does not support current OS versions, usb will probably be at least as fast anyway. Microsoft links suggested by western digital a http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;305098 and http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;303013 It appears that the attractiveness of 160 gb drives using current and/or moderately aged technology is modest for those that like to be able to move drive around freely. Dave Platt AE6EO Kind regards Peter Larsen -- ******************************************* * My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk * ******************************************* |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
160 gb drives & data recovery software, beware!
Dave Platt wrote:
Please check the applicability of data recovery software with these drives prior to have to rely on it, I just lost a partion on such a drive in an unknown and un-understood error ... There are a few conditions for the safe use of that drive size - 160 gb - and if those are not met, then the partition that exceeds it can and will vanish without warning or error message - other than that it has gone missing - at the instant of the 28 bit address space being exceeded. This a brief excerpt of a very fine explanation received from Western Digital - not their drive, but their software also did not read its size correctly on the machine in question. The event log error is strange ... the machine complains about missing member of stripe or volume set, but when all bets are off, then indeed they *are* off and anything, it appears, can get logged to explain an unimagined, thus untrapped error. This is likely a BIOS / device-driver issue. Indeed, it should in my opinion have worked because the drive is on a highpoint 368 controller that appears to the OS as being scsi, but it was only to partion magic that the drive looked as it is. Once the primary partion was removed in diskmanager (nt4) then the drive looks like 128 gb in it, so it seems that the OS has told the recoverysoftware tried that "drive claims to be larger, but surely it is nonsense". In order to address the additional capacity, all of the software that you use must be able to use the ATA-6 commands. At least one of the suppliers of recovery software that I filed bugreports at say "uhm, we're working on just that right now ... ". Thank you for pointing me in the right direction Dave. It appears that I will have to put the drive in a usb-box to have benefit of its full size for backups, the "iron" of the old machine (p133) I had put it in does not support current OS versions, usb will probably be at least as fast anyway. Microsoft links suggested by western digital a http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;305098 and http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;303013 It appears that the attractiveness of 160 gb drives using current and/or moderately aged technology is modest for those that like to be able to move drive around freely. Dave Platt AE6EO Kind regards Peter Larsen -- ******************************************* * My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk * ******************************************* |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
160 gb drives & data recovery software, beware!
Peter,
It is worthwhile mentioning that RAID'ing does not safeguard against such logical errors. Actually, this depends on the RAID card and your configuration.... Some RAIDs will simply mark the bad block and copy the parity information to a good spot or to another drive, since it has another copy on one of the other drives. This is the advantage of RAID-5. RAID-0 doesn't do this, striping without parity offers no redundancy, in fact, every drive you add to a RAID 0 increases your chances for a major catastrophe. Lose one drive, lose the info on all with 0, unless the 0 is mirrored, aka RAID10 (Raid 1 + 0... 4, 6, 8 ... n drives). It all depends on the card's RAID implementation and your configuration. 7 drives in a raid-0 means it is 7x more likely one will fail and take your information with it, so mirroring becomes increasingly important. Server quality RAID's are much more robust. If you paid less than $400 USD or so for a SCSI card(pricewatch price), it probably isn't industrial quality. The $79 adaptec cards aren't giving you too much. U320 on PCIX is what you need on your file server, SATA RAID10 on your workstation. Only problem is with any RAID, it isn't a backup system. RAID10 only protects you from drive failures, it is not a backup substitute. Hope this info helps... See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID for more complete information about RAID. Do not mess with iSCSI unless you have 10Gbps LAN.... i mean it : ) It won't work for any appreciable amount of audio without this. 1Gbps iSCSI will net you about 117MB's per second. A local SATA mirror is better. -neil |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
160 gb drives & data recovery software, beware!
Peter,
It is worthwhile mentioning that RAID'ing does not safeguard against such logical errors. Actually, this depends on the RAID card and your configuration.... Some RAIDs will simply mark the bad block and copy the parity information to a good spot or to another drive, since it has another copy on one of the other drives. This is the advantage of RAID-5. RAID-0 doesn't do this, striping without parity offers no redundancy, in fact, every drive you add to a RAID 0 increases your chances for a major catastrophe. Lose one drive, lose the info on all with 0, unless the 0 is mirrored, aka RAID10 (Raid 1 + 0... 4, 6, 8 ... n drives). It all depends on the card's RAID implementation and your configuration. 7 drives in a raid-0 means it is 7x more likely one will fail and take your information with it, so mirroring becomes increasingly important. Server quality RAID's are much more robust. If you paid less than $400 USD or so for a SCSI card(pricewatch price), it probably isn't industrial quality. The $79 adaptec cards aren't giving you too much. U320 on PCIX is what you need on your file server, SATA RAID10 on your workstation. Only problem is with any RAID, it isn't a backup system. RAID10 only protects you from drive failures, it is not a backup substitute. Hope this info helps... See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID for more complete information about RAID. Do not mess with iSCSI unless you have 10Gbps LAN.... i mean it : ) It won't work for any appreciable amount of audio without this. 1Gbps iSCSI will net you about 117MB's per second. A local SATA mirror is better. -neil |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
160 gb drives & data recovery software, beware!
Peter,
It is worthwhile mentioning that RAID'ing does not safeguard against such logical errors. Actually, this depends on the RAID card and your configuration.... Some RAIDs will simply mark the bad block and copy the parity information to a good spot or to another drive, since it has another copy on one of the other drives. This is the advantage of RAID-5. RAID-0 doesn't do this, striping without parity offers no redundancy, in fact, every drive you add to a RAID 0 increases your chances for a major catastrophe. Lose one drive, lose the info on all with 0, unless the 0 is mirrored, aka RAID10 (Raid 1 + 0... 4, 6, 8 ... n drives). It all depends on the card's RAID implementation and your configuration. 7 drives in a raid-0 means it is 7x more likely one will fail and take your information with it, so mirroring becomes increasingly important. Server quality RAID's are much more robust. If you paid less than $400 USD or so for a SCSI card(pricewatch price), it probably isn't industrial quality. The $79 adaptec cards aren't giving you too much. U320 on PCIX is what you need on your file server, SATA RAID10 on your workstation. Only problem is with any RAID, it isn't a backup system. RAID10 only protects you from drive failures, it is not a backup substitute. Hope this info helps... See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID for more complete information about RAID. Do not mess with iSCSI unless you have 10Gbps LAN.... i mean it : ) It won't work for any appreciable amount of audio without this. 1Gbps iSCSI will net you about 117MB's per second. A local SATA mirror is better. -neil |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
160 gb drives & data recovery software, beware!
Peter,
It is worthwhile mentioning that RAID'ing does not safeguard against such logical errors. Actually, this depends on the RAID card and your configuration.... Some RAIDs will simply mark the bad block and copy the parity information to a good spot or to another drive, since it has another copy on one of the other drives. This is the advantage of RAID-5. RAID-0 doesn't do this, striping without parity offers no redundancy, in fact, every drive you add to a RAID 0 increases your chances for a major catastrophe. Lose one drive, lose the info on all with 0, unless the 0 is mirrored, aka RAID10 (Raid 1 + 0... 4, 6, 8 ... n drives). It all depends on the card's RAID implementation and your configuration. 7 drives in a raid-0 means it is 7x more likely one will fail and take your information with it, so mirroring becomes increasingly important. Server quality RAID's are much more robust. If you paid less than $400 USD or so for a SCSI card(pricewatch price), it probably isn't industrial quality. The $79 adaptec cards aren't giving you too much. U320 on PCIX is what you need on your file server, SATA RAID10 on your workstation. Only problem is with any RAID, it isn't a backup system. RAID10 only protects you from drive failures, it is not a backup substitute. Hope this info helps... See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID for more complete information about RAID. Do not mess with iSCSI unless you have 10Gbps LAN.... i mean it : ) It won't work for any appreciable amount of audio without this. 1Gbps iSCSI will net you about 117MB's per second. A local SATA mirror is better. -neil |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Richman's ethical lapses | Audio Opinions | |||
DAW & Windows XP RAID Tips, ProTools error -9086 | Pro Audio | |||
Where are those Wascally Weapons of Mass Destwuction??? | Audio Opinions |