USB2.0 to IDE Drive - frequently corrupts drive. EVent ID ..

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Hi,

I have a "USB2.0 to IDE" external case and a 120GB Seagate drive (ST312002
2A drive) - which I connect to my laptop and desktop system - and
periodically gets corrupted. The external case has its own power source,
USB2.0 to IDE cable which is connected to a USB2 PCI adapter.

I have had to FDISK and FORMAT the drive repeatedly and am now frustrated as
there must be a reason for the corruption.
Has anyone experienced this before ort have a resolution?

I format the 120gb drive using a Windows 98SE bootable floppy. The system
the drive is connected to only permits a Primary Partition of 48.9GB.
However I can format the full 120GB (111GB actually due to the drive
overhead) in NTFS format, successfully on my Win2000 laptop.
I have been able to successfully backup my 40GB laptop to the 120GB drive a
few times however it intermittently corrupts, indicated by a repeated entry
in the Application log of
Source NTFS
Event Id 55,
Category :Disk and a
description of "The file system structure on the disk E: is currupt and
unusable. Please ruin the chkdsk utility on the volume E"

Any assistance will be appreciated
Thanks
trmbr
12 answers Last reply
More about usb2 drive frequently corrupts drive event
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    trmbr wrote:
    >
    > Hi,
    >
    > I have a "USB2.0 to IDE" external case and a 120GB Seagate drive (ST312002
    > 2A drive) - which I connect to my laptop and desktop system - and
    > periodically gets corrupted. The external case has its own power source,
    > USB2.0 to IDE cable which is connected to a USB2 PCI adapter.
    >
    > I have had to FDISK and FORMAT the drive repeatedly and am now frustrated as
    > there must be a reason for the corruption.
    > Has anyone experienced this before ort have a resolution?
    >
    > I format the 120gb drive using a Windows 98SE bootable floppy. The system
    > the drive is connected to only permits a Primary Partition of 48.9GB.
    > However I can format the full 120GB (111GB actually due to the drive
    > overhead) in NTFS format, successfully on my Win2000 laptop.
    > I have been able to successfully backup my 40GB laptop to the 120GB drive a
    > few times however it intermittently corrupts, indicated by a repeated entry
    > in the Application log of
    > Source NTFS
    > Event Id 55,
    > Category :Disk and a
    > description of "The file system structure on the disk E: is currupt and
    > unusable. Please ruin the chkdsk utility on the volume E"
    >
    > Any assistance will be appreciated
    > Thanks
    > trmbr


    I'm researching data corruption with USB devices at the moment; it is
    occurring fairly extensively. USB should not be considered as a method
    of connectivity for (important) backup media. Maxtor is about to learn
    this with their OneTouch drives.

    Firewire is more reliable, although there are certain chipsets to avoid.


    Odie
    --

    Retrodata
    The Globally Local Data Recovery Experts
    www.retrodata.co.uk
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 15:25:14 +1100, "trmbr" <trmbr50@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    >I have a "USB2.0 to IDE" external case and a 120GB Seagate drive (ST312002
    >2A drive) - which I connect to my laptop and desktop system - and
    >periodically gets corrupted. The external case has its own power source,
    >USB2.0 to IDE cable which is connected to a USB2 PCI adapter.

    There's a long thread here that addresses large file corruption with
    USB. The context is True Image support, but I understand it's not a
    TI issue.
    http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=65129

    You might want to give it a quick browse and see if it's what you're
    seeing. I use Firewire as my primary backup and keep the file sizes
    to 700 MB for flexibility, and haven't seen any corruption problems.


    --
    Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 06:50:57 +0000, Odie Ferrous
    <odie_ferrous@hotmail.com> wrote:


    >Firewire is more reliable, although there are certain chipsets to avoid.

    which ones?
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Neil Maxwell" <neil.maxwell@intel.com> wrote in message
    news:fp8h21tl64hqm2gsgij60p923ji6gmadce@4ax.com...
    > On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 15:25:14 +1100, "trmbr" <trmbr50@hotmail.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >I have a "USB2.0 to IDE" external case and a 120GB Seagate drive
    (ST312002
    > >2A drive) - which I connect to my laptop and desktop system - and
    > >periodically gets corrupted. The external case has its own power source,
    > >USB2.0 to IDE cable which is connected to a USB2 PCI adapter.
    >
    > There's a long thread here that addresses large file corruption with
    > USB. The context is True Image support, but I understand it's not a
    > TI issue.
    > http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=65129
    >
    > You might want to give it a quick browse and see if it's what you're
    > seeing. I use Firewire as my primary backup and keep the file sizes
    > to 700 MB for flexibility, and haven't seen any corruption problems.
    >
    >
    > --
    > Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer

    Thanks for the responses - much appreciated.
    I follow the link provided, and below is my experience.

    I have experienced problems using other backup software, i.e. SyncBack,
    which has resulted in intermittent USB-IDE Drive corruption.
    I use a combination of Windows2003Server, Windows 2000 Pro and Windows XP. I
    connect my external 120gb USB11/20 external drive to all 3 systems, and
    irrespective of the O/S, corruption intermittently occurs, rendering the
    entire drive inaccessible - an FDISK and FORMAT are again required.
    The drive isnt faulty as Ive run diagnostics and have used it successfully
    before. Only when connected to a USB port, its corrupts.

    I "unplug" the device as per the USB Unplug/Eject hardware utility. I dont
    power off the external power, until thr drive is reported to be safe to
    remove.

    The external USB-IDE case was purchased at a computer market, therefore I
    dont know the brand. I suspect the corruption occurs when the 120GB drive
    exceeds 70GB - has anyone experienced this capacity limit?

    Regards
    trmbr
  5. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "trmbr" <trmbr50@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:d0g3lr$51k$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...

    > I suspect the corruption occurs when the 120GB drive
    > exceeds 70GB - has anyone experienced this capacity limit?

    I don't see any problem at 70GB on my XP only set up. My drive hovers around
    75GByte all the time and I change about 20GB every night - seems to work ok.

    Perhaps it's a problem with older OS?
    Power supply?
    Overheating?
    Suspect USB cable (USB 2.0 cables are different to 1.1 only cables)

    What about running a drive test program? Leave it going over a weekend to
    see if you have some duff sectors.
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    CWatters wrote:

    >
    > "trmbr" <trmbr50@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:d0g3lr$51k$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
    >
    >> I suspect the corruption occurs when the 120GB drive
    >> exceeds 70GB - has anyone experienced this capacity limit?
    >
    > I don't see any problem at 70GB on my XP only set up. My drive hovers
    > around 75GByte all the time and I change about 20GB every night - seems to
    > work ok.
    >
    > Perhaps it's a problem with older OS?
    > Power supply?
    > Overheating?
    > Suspect USB cable (USB 2.0 cables are different to 1.1 only cables)

    There is no standard that specifically defines a USB 2.0 cable--a cable that
    meets the USB 1.1 standard works fine for USB 2.0 and is the specified
    cable for that use. Where the problem comes in is that the USB 1.1
    standard overengineered the cable so some cable manufacturers started
    producing substandard cables that still worked fine for 1.1.

    > What about running a drive test program? Leave it going over a weekend to
    > see if you have some duff sectors.

    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    > There is no standard that specifically defines a USB 2.0 cable--a cable
    that
    > meets the USB 1.1 standard works fine for USB 2.0 and is the specified
    > cable for that use. Where the problem comes in is that the USB 1.1
    > standard overengineered the cable so some cable manufacturers started
    > producing substandard cables that still worked fine for 1.1.
    >

    What about section 6 and 7 in "Universal Serial Bus Specification Revision
    2.0"? There is a lot of information about USB cable specs. They may have
    used "high-/full-speed USB cable" term instead.

    By the way, there are three USB cable assemblies: standard detachable cable,
    high-/full-speed
    captive cable, and low-speed captive cable.
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Peter wrote:

    >> There is no standard that specifically defines a USB 2.0 cable--a cable
    > that
    >> meets the USB 1.1 standard works fine for USB 2.0 and is the specified
    >> cable for that use. Where the problem comes in is that the USB 1.1
    >> standard overengineered the cable so some cable manufacturers started
    >> producing substandard cables that still worked fine for 1.1.
    >>
    >
    > What about section 6 and 7 in "Universal Serial Bus Specification Revision
    > 2.0"? There is a lot of information about USB cable specs. They may have
    > used "high-/full-speed USB cable" term instead.
    >
    > By the way, there are three USB cable assemblies: standard detachable
    > cable, high-/full-speed
    > captive cable, and low-speed captive cable.

    "captive cable" is permanently attached to a device--your choice is to use
    it, toss the device, or second-guess the designer, open it up, and attach
    your own cable to it.

    As for section 6 and 7 of the USB 2.0 spec, yes, there are cable
    specifications. It may have escaped your notice that there are also cable
    specifications in 1.1. Now, would you care to list the particulars in
    which a detachable cable compliant with the USB 2.0 spec will be different
    from one that is in compliance with the final revision of the 1.1 spec?

    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    > As for section 6 and 7 of the USB 2.0 spec, yes, there are cable
    > specifications. It may have escaped your notice that there are also cable
    > specifications in 1.1. Now, would you care to list the particulars in
    > which a detachable cable compliant with the USB 2.0 spec will be different
    > from one that is in compliance with the final revision of the 1.1 spec?
    >
    I initially did not look at USB 1.1 specs. But, yes, you are right that
    cable fully compliant with FINAL revision (emphasize word "final") of the
    1.1 spec should be also fully compliant with USB 2.0 spec.

    The difference between original and FINAL 1.1 spec are:
    1) Add to the frequency range of the attenuations table (Table 7-4) to
    include 200MHz <3.2db and
    400MHz < 5.8db
    2) Specify that the common mode impedance (Zcm) must be 30 ohms +/- 30%
    3) Clarify section 7.1.16 so that one way cable delay is 5.2 ns/m (not 26ns
    regardless of length)
    4) Tighten cable skew (Sec 7.1.3) to 100ps from 400ps
    5) DC resistance from plug shell to plug shell < .6 ohms
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Just found this thread, and found it interesting as I am also experiencing
    data corruption in a slightly different setting.

    I have one of those pocket-sized micro USB hard drives - the 2.2 GB drive
    from GS-MagicStor that CompUSA sells under its house brand.

    I primarily use it for short-term storage and transfer of files between
    several computers, much as I would a big flash drive. Every now and then,
    it gives me a "surprise".

    On one occasion, a folder I had created became inaccessible when trying to
    read the drive on another computer. The directory entry for the folder
    itself had become trashed, rendering the contents to be lost as file
    fragments. After that, I started running chkdsk or scandisk immediately
    after plugging the drive into a new machine.

    Occasionally, I will get a message that the boot sector is damaged and I
    allow it to be repaired. Nothing else found.

    At one point, however, I had an instructive experience. I had an .RAR file
    on the pocket drive, and it needed to be updated. Rather than update in on
    the PC's internal drive and then copy the new version back, I allowed
    WinRAR to update the archive on the USB drive. When I let WinRAR test the
    newly-updated archive, one file failed. Extracting it, there was a random
    1-byte error. It occurred to me that, after copying lots of megabytes of
    files without error, a critical factor might be CPU activity at the time
    of the data transfer.

    I don't have access to sophisticated testing tools, and the drive itself
    is a closed system so I can't, say, remove it and try it on an IDE
    controller to see if there are problems there. But the experience has
    really soured me on the prospect of portable high-capacity storage.


    tes
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Peter" <peterfoxghost@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
    news:393jp7F5q6sflU1@individual.net...

    > I initially did not look at USB 1.1 specs. But, yes, you are right that
    > cable fully compliant with FINAL revision (emphasize word "final") of the
    > 1.1 spec should be also fully compliant with USB 2.0 spec.

    Yes I should have been clearer. I can't imagine why a cable manufacturer
    would make a USB 1.1 only cable but they do seem to exist. I can only
    assume they are sub-spec perhaps.
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "CWatters" <colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote in message
    news:1FUWd.31637$dv1.3144814@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
    >
    > "trmbr" <trmbr50@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:d0g3lr$51k$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
    >
    > > I suspect the corruption occurs when the 120GB drive
    > > exceeds 70GB - has anyone experienced this capacity limit?
    >
    > I don't see any problem at 70GB on my XP only set up. My drive hovers
    around
    > 75GByte all the time and I change about 20GB every night - seems to work
    ok.
    >
    > Perhaps it's a problem with older OS?
    > Power supply?
    > Overheating?
    > Suspect USB cable (USB 2.0 cables are different to 1.1 only cables)
    >
    > What about running a drive test program? Leave it going over a weekend to
    > see if you have some duff sectors.
    >
    >
    Thanks for all the responses and related feedback - much appreciated.

    The drive is ok as I've run diagnostic tests on it - all tests are ok, no
    bad sectors or tracks.
    The USB-to-IDE external case & cable are both USB1.1 and USB 2.0 compatible.

    I've resorted to testing whether the corruption always occurs when connected
    to a USB2.0 or USB1.1 port, as the PCI USB2.0 adapter (in my laptop) might
    also be suspect. I assume that connecting to either a 1.1 and 2.0 USB port
    should not make any difference as the cable is 1.1/2.0 compatible, the only
    noticable difference will be the transfer rate. Is this correct?

    Will post the results after backing up my laptop drive, 30GB, using USB1.1
    port which will take "forever" in comparispon to USB2.0
Ask a new question

Read More

Format Storage