Recovery boot sector of logical partition

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

I have a HD of 60 gb splitted in two FAT32 partitions (HD1 primary
28.7Gb and HD2 logical 29.7Gb ). The HD is used as slave, and it is not
the bootable HD in my PC.

Disaster striked when, in a "normal" starting up, without apparent
reasons, the drive HD2 in Computer resources appeared as RAW, asking if
touched to be formatted. (It was almost full of data).

I checked with an utility and it appears that the very first sector
(S1) of the drive HD2 logical partition gives error (C.3697, H1 S1).
When with an editor I checked this sector I have the following message
"An Error occured while reading from absolute sector 59392368" (i.e
corrisponding to C 3697, H1, S1). Is there something that I can do to
regain HD2? Can I remove the sector above and tell the system to check
from the next sector? Is there some utility that can be helpful
(Partition Table Doctor was unable to fix the boot sector). Thanks for
your time
26 answers Last reply
More about recovery boot sector logical partition
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Many thanks for your answers.
    To F.R.: Thanks, yes, indeed is the partition bootsector. (sorry, I am
    a new DIY, not an expert). A point that seems important is that when I
    tested the surface of the HD, this first partition bootsector gives me
    "Verify sector error at:59392368". It seems therefore that the HD is
    not able to read that sector, not just that it is corrupted. Am I
    correct?

    To Joep: Many thanks for your support. I will certainly try to post the
    log. But giving the "surface test" do you really think that it is
    possible to edit that sector?
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Sorry just an update:
    As F.R. suggested 6 sectors after S1 (i.e. S7) there is "something" and
    S2 and S8 are the same (by the way this is not true for S3&S4 and
    S9&10). I saved S7 with Partition Table Doctor 3 (that is what I have,
    probably Joep's Utility is better but I have only the trial). I was
    tempted to Restore the saved sector S7 in S1. I had several warnings by
    PTD that this may destroy all data. So I stopped and I am asking now to
    you. Shall I go on? :)
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    <science2003@libero.it> wrote in message news:1122240274.362368.309960@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > I have a HD of 60 gb split in two FAT32 partitions (HD1 primary
    > 28.7Gb and HD2 logical 29.7Gb ). The HD is used as slave, and it is not
    > the bootable HD in my PC.
    >
    > Disaster stroke when, in a "normal" starting up, without apparent
    > reasons, the drive HD2 in Computer resources appeared as RAW,
    > asking if touched to be formatted. (It was almost full of data).

    > I checked with an utility and it appears that the very first sector
    > (S1) of the drive HD2 logical partition gives error (C.3697, H1 S1).

    Actually, that is the partition bootsector, not the first sector and not
    the first data sector either.

    > When with an editor I checked this sector I have the following message
    > "An Error occurred while reading from absolute sector 59392368" (ie
    > corresponding to C 3697, H1, S1).

    > Is there something that I can do to regain HD2?

    Probably.

    > Can I remove the sector above

    No.

    > and tell the system to check from the next sector?

    What's the point. It's the partition bootsector. You can't just do without
    (though in theory you should and some older OS indeed do, but not the later ones).

    FAT32 has a backup bootsector usually 6 sectors behind the original.
    You need a Hex sector editor that can copy the backup sector contents
    and is capable and dump it to the original destination without reading
    the contents from that original destination first.

    > Is there some utility that can be helpful (Partition Table Doctor was
    > unable to fix the boot sector).

    Yes, no positives for that one yet.

    > Thanks for your time
    >
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    <science2003@libero.it> wrote in message
    news:1122240274.362368.309960@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > I have a HD of 60 gb splitted in two FAT32 partitions (HD1 primary
    > 28.7Gb and HD2 logical 29.7Gb ). The HD is used as slave, and it is not
    > the bootable HD in my PC.
    >
    > Disaster striked when, in a "normal" starting up, without apparent
    > reasons, the drive HD2 in Computer resources appeared as RAW, asking if
    > touched to be formatted. (It was almost full of data).
    >
    > I checked with an utility and it appears that the very first sector
    > (S1) of the drive HD2 logical partition gives error (C.3697, H1 S1).
    > When with an editor I checked this sector I have the following message
    > "An Error occured while reading from absolute sector 59392368" (i.e
    > corrisponding to C 3697, H1, S1). Is there something that I can do to
    > regain HD2? Can I remove the sector above and tell the system to check
    > from the next sector? Is there some utility that can be helpful
    > (Partition Table Doctor was unable to fix the boot sector). Thanks for
    > your time
    >

    You can probably, like F.R. suggested use a diske editor and copy the backup
    boot sector to the corrupt sector. If you feel uncomfortable using a disk
    editor I can help:

    Get DiskPatch from www.diydatarecovery.nl > with DiskPatch create a support
    log > post the log in the forum on our website (again
    www.diydatarecovery.nl).

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

    Maybe you need ask support@ptdd.com
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    <science2003@libero.it> wrote in message
    news:1122269928.863298.221460@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > Sorry just an update:
    > As F.R. suggested 6 sectors after S1 (i.e. S7) there is "something" and
    > S2 and S8 are the same (by the way this is not true for S3&S4 and
    > S9&10). I saved S7 with Partition Table Doctor 3 (that is what I have,
    > probably Joep's Utility is better

    Yes.

    > but I have only the trial). I was
    > tempted to Restore the saved sector S7 in S1. I had several warnings by
    > PTD that this may destroy all data. So I stopped and I am asking now to
    > you. Shall I go on? :)

    Yes. It will not destroy all data. You can not detroy all data when writing
    to just this one sector.

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

    <science2003@libero.it> wrote in message news:1122264815.022376.14280@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
    > Many thanks for your answers.
    > To F.R.: Thanks, yes, indeed is the partition bootsector. (sorry, I am
    > a new DIY, not an expert).

    Your subject line was actually correct.

    > A point that seems important is that when I
    > tested the surface of the HD, this first partition bootsector gives me
    > "Verify sector error at:59392368".

    > It seems therefore that the HD is not able to read that sector, not
    > just that it is corrupted.

    > Am I correct?

    Both is correct. The drive can't read it because the calculated ECC and
    the recorded ECC differ, meaning the sector cannot be reliably read,
    meaning contents is not reliable, i.e. corrupt. Also known as a bad sector.

    If this state persists it can only be corrected by overwriting the sector.
    In this case by using the contents of the back-up bootsector.

    >
    > To Joep: Many thanks for your support. I will certainly try to post the
    > log. But giving the "surface test" do you really think that it is possible to
    > edit that sector?

    Not if it stays persistently bad.

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

    <wemaole@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1122301740.935896.43150@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > Maybe you need ask support@ptdd.com

    Or in other words, you don't trust yourself to answer it here in public, PTD spam bot.

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

    Well, let me update
    >shall I go on?
    > Yes....
    So I did, and I got it (touching wood): The logical partition has been
    claimed back at the next reboot. Thank you to all of you very much
    indeed.
    I run next chkdsk \v and the partition is not really perfect. 32K of
    disk error. Do you want to correct it and make CHK? Y/N: N!
    And I said no because I read during the past night Joep's product
    DiskPatch manual. Yes, I learnt a lot of things and I shall
    congratulate of what DP is able to do. But it is all DOS! To be
    assured, I brought the product to a geek in the IT department. He knew
    your product and I asked him to made the log of my HD for me (then I
    take the courage myself and I did the patch).
    DP is able to correct better sector errors than chkdsk does, I learnt,
    so I would probably bring the product back the IT dep. to make a
    general block check before I am using it (I need a bit of wait for
    this).
    Two general considerations that may help other people: from DP manual:
    1 scandisk and checkdisk "main job is to keep the filesystem okay, not
    the actual data that resides on the disk." So is there an alternative
    that can be run within Windows that allows chkdsk \Fix undos or that
    ask before making changes to structure that may lose data, telling what
    will be lost?
    2. For a parallel ATA HD used to store data in a mobile rack and that
    is swaped to different PCs (with WIn2000 e WinXP), what is the best
    format to minimize the above losses: NTFS or FAT32. And is it better to
    have two primary or one primary and one logical parititon?
    Many thanks again
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    science2003@libero.it wrote:

    > Sorry just an update:
    > As F.R. suggested 6 sectors after S1 (i.e. S7) there is "something" and
    > S2 and S8 are the same (by the way this is not true for S3&S4 and
    > S9&10). I saved S7 with Partition Table Doctor 3 (that is what I have,
    > probably Joep's Utility is better but I have only the trial). I was
    > tempted to Restore the saved sector S7 in S1. I had several warnings by
    > PTD that this may destroy all data. So I stopped and I am asking now to
    > you. Shall I go on? :)

    You don't risk much by attempting to rewrite that single sector, but I doubt
    that it will work.

    If the data in the inaccessible partition is worth the cost of a new drive, and
    the overwriting of the boot sector fails, then I recommend that you clone the
    drive to a new one, in good working condition, and that you finish the recovery
    on the clone.

    Regards, Zvi
    --
    NetZ Computing Ltd. ISRAEL www.invircible.com www.ivi.co.il (Hebrew)
    InVircible Virus Defense Solutions, ResQ and Data Recovery Utilities
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Zvi Netiv" <support@replace_with_domain.com> wrote in message
    news:4mrbe1l5g3mcdcev2rgkot7ah8bcjip302@4ax.com...
    > science2003@libero.it wrote:
    >
    > > Sorry just an update:
    > > As F.R. suggested 6 sectors after S1 (i.e. S7) there is "something" and
    > > S2 and S8 are the same (by the way this is not true for S3&S4 and
    > > S9&10). I saved S7 with Partition Table Doctor 3 (that is what I have,
    > > probably Joep's Utility is better but I have only the trial). I was
    > > tempted to Restore the saved sector S7 in S1. I had several warnings by
    > > PTD that this may destroy all data. So I stopped and I am asking now to
    > > you. Shall I go on? :)
    >
    > You don't risk much by attempting to rewrite that single sector, but I
    doubt
    > that it will work.
    >

    Hmm ... you may be right but I am pretty optimistic that it can be
    reallocated. It's worth the try.

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

    <science2003@libero.it> wrote in message news:1122366436.980636.115580@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
    > Well, let me update
    > > shall I go on?
    > > Yes....
    > So I did, and I got it (touching wood): The logical partition has been
    > claimed back at the next reboot. Thank you to all of you very much
    > indeed.
    > I run next chkdsk \v and the partition is not really perfect. 32K of
    > disk error. Do you want to correct it and make CHK? Y/N: N!
    > And I said no because I read during the past night Joep's product
    > DiskPatch manual. Yes, I learnt a lot of things and I shall
    > congratulate of what DP is able to do. But it is all DOS! To be
    > assured, I brought the product to a geek in the IT department. He knew
    > your product and I asked him to made the log of my HD for me (then I
    > take the courage myself and I did the patch).

    > DP is able to correct better sector errors than chkdsk does, I learnt,

    Oh, in what way?

    > so I would probably bring the product back to the IT dep. to make a
    > general block check before I am using it (I need a bit of wait for this).

    > Two general considerations that may help other people:
    > from DP manual:
    > 1 scandisk and checkdisk "main job is to keep the filesystem okay, not
    > the actual data that resides on the disk."
    > So is there an alternative that can be run within Windows that allows
    > chkdsk \Fix undos or that ask before making changes to structure that
    > may lose data, telling what will be lost?
    >
    > 2. For a parallel ATA HD used to store data in a mobile rack and that
    > is swaped to different PCs (with WIn2000 e WinXP), what is the best
    > format to minimize the above losses: NTFS or FAT32. And is it better
    > to have two primary or one primary and one logical parititon?
    > Many thanks again
  13. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Zvi Netiv" <support@replace_with_domain.com> wrote in message news:4mrbe1l5g3mcdcev2rgkot7ah8bcjip302@4ax.com
    > science2003@libero.it wrote:
    >
    > > Sorry just an update:
    > > As F.R. suggested 6 sectors after S1 (i.e. S7) there is "something" and
    > > S2 and S8 are the same (by the way this is not true for S3&S4 and
    > > S9&10). I saved S7 with Partition Table Doctor 3 (that is what I have,
    > > probably Joep's Utility is better but I have only the trial). I was
    > > tempted to Restore the saved sector S7 in S1. I had several warnings by
    > > PTD that this may destroy all data. So I stopped and I am asking now to
    > > you. Shall I go on? :)
    >
    > You don't risk much by attempting to rewrite that single sector, but I doubt
    > that it will work.

    That's because you *still* don't know how harddrives work.

    >
    > If the data in the inaccessible partition is worth the cost of a new drive,

    > and the overwriting of the boot sector fails,

    For that to happen the drive must be dead as a doornail. It obviously isn't.

    > then I recommend that you clone the drive to a new one,

    Clone a 'dead as a doornail' drive? You must be kidding.

    > in good working condition, and that you finish the recovery on the clone.

    For one single bad sector -that likely isn't even bad, just badly written-,
    that's totally mad.

    >
    > Regards, Zvi
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote in message
    news:42e65847$0$12088$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net...
    > "Zvi Netiv" <support@replace_with_domain.com> wrote in message
    news:4mrbe1l5g3mcdcev2rgkot7ah8bcjip302@4ax.com
    > > science2003@libero.it wrote:
    > >
    > > > Sorry just an update:
    > > > As F.R. suggested 6 sectors after S1 (i.e. S7) there is "something"
    and
    > > > S2 and S8 are the same (by the way this is not true for S3&S4 and
    > > > S9&10). I saved S7 with Partition Table Doctor 3 (that is what I have,
    > > > probably Joep's Utility is better but I have only the trial). I was
    > > > tempted to Restore the saved sector S7 in S1. I had several warnings
    by
    > > > PTD that this may destroy all data. So I stopped and I am asking now
    to
    > > > you. Shall I go on? :)
    > >
    > > You don't risk much by attempting to rewrite that single sector, but I
    doubt
    > > that it will work.
    >
    > That's because you *still* don't know how harddrives work.
    >
    > >
    > > If the data in the inaccessible partition is worth the cost of a new
    drive,
    >
    > > and the overwriting of the boot sector fails,
    >
    > For that to happen the drive must be dead as a doornail. It obviously
    isn't.
    >
    > > then I recommend that you clone the drive to a new one,
    >
    > Clone a 'dead as a doornail' drive? You must be kidding.
    >

    FYI: I have seen disks that did no longer seem to reallocate and still could
    be cloned. It is not as exceptional as you make it sound. They were more
    alive than a doornail.

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

    science2003@libero.it wrote:
    > Well, let me update
    >> shall I go on?
    >> Yes....
    > So I did, and I got it (touching wood): The logical partition has been
    > claimed back at the next reboot. Thank you to all of you very much
    > indeed.
    > I run next chkdsk \v and the partition is not really perfect. 32K of
    > disk error. Do you want to correct it and make CHK? Y/N: N!
    > And I said no because I read during the past night Joep's product
    > DiskPatch manual. Yes, I learnt a lot of things and I shall
    > congratulate of what DP is able to do. But it is all DOS! To be
    > assured, I brought the product to a geek in the IT department. He knew
    > your product and I asked him to made the log of my HD for me (then I
    > take the courage myself and I did the patch).
    > DP is able to correct better sector errors than chkdsk does, I learnt,
    > so I would probably bring the product back the IT dep. to make a
    > general block check before I am using it (I need a bit of wait for
    > this).

    > Two general considerations that may help other people: from DP manual:
    > 1 scandisk and checkdisk "main job is to keep the filesystem okay, not
    > the actual data that resides on the disk." So is there an alternative
    > that can be run within Windows that allows chkdsk \Fix undos or that
    > ask before making changes to structure that may lose data, telling
    > what will be lost?

    The safest approach is to clone the drive to another
    before trying various tools to recover what data you can.

    And chkdsk is very undesirable, there are plenty better tools around
    for file recovery. I like EasyRecovery Pro myself, but it aint free.

    > 2. For a parallel ATA HD used to store data in a mobile rack and
    > that is swaped to different PCs (with WIn2000 e WinXP), what is
    > the best format to minimize the above losses: NTFS or FAT32.

    NTFS.

    > And is it better to have two primary or
    > one primary and one logical parititon?

    Doesnt really matter much, two primarys is a bit simpler.
  16. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Folkert Rienstra <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
    > "Zvi Netiv" <support@replace_with_domain.com> wrote in message
    > news:4mrbe1l5g3mcdcev2rgkot7ah8bcjip302@4ax.com
    >> science2003@libero.it wrote:
    >>
    >>> Sorry just an update:
    >>> As F.R. suggested 6 sectors after S1 (i.e. S7) there is "something"
    >>> and S2 and S8 are the same (by the way this is not true for S3&S4
    >>> and S9&10). I saved S7 with Partition Table Doctor 3 (that is what
    >>> I have, probably Joep's Utility is better but I have only the
    >>> trial). I was tempted to Restore the saved sector S7 in S1. I had
    >>> several warnings by PTD that this may destroy all data. So I
    >>> stopped and I am asking now to you. Shall I go on? :)
    >>
    >> You don't risk much by attempting to rewrite that single sector, but
    >> I doubt that it will work.
    >
    > That's because you *still* don't know how harddrives work.
    >
    >>
    >> If the data in the inaccessible partition is worth the cost of a new
    >> drive,
    >
    >> and the overwriting of the boot sector fails,
    >
    > For that to happen the drive must be dead as a doornail. It obviously
    > isn't.
    >
    >> then I recommend that you clone the drive to a new one,
    >
    > Clone a 'dead as a doornail' drive? You must be kidding.
    >
    >> in good working condition, and that you finish the recovery on the
    >> clone.

    > For one single bad sector

    You dont know that yet.

    > -that likely isn't even bad, just badly written-,

    Or that.

    > that's totally mad.

    Nope, it allows you to try various recovery tools/
  17. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Am I wrong, or the File Allocation (i.e. Order) Table of our messages
    is not quite right. :) Any way thank you again for this discussion.
  18. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    >>Am I wrong, or the File Allocation (i.e. Order) Table of our messages
    >> is not quite right. :)

    >Sorry, that doesn't make any sense to me
    Sorry for not be clear enough. Google groups beta (Italy at least)
    showed on the left panel the list of messages not just in the right
    order in my browser, i.e. some messages that were post presumably after
    some others come up in the list before (and obviously viceversa).
  19. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
    > "Zvi Netiv" <support@replace_with_domain.com> wrote in message
    > > science2003@libero.it wrote:

    [...]
    > > If the data in the inaccessible partition is worth the cost of a new drive,
    > > and the overwriting of the boot sector fails,
    >
    > For that to happen the drive must be dead as a doornail. It obviously isn't.

    Then I must have recovered many "dead" drives. ;-) With all due respect, you
    don't have the slightest idea on what you are talking about.

    > > then I recommend that you clone the drive to a new one,
    >
    > Clone a 'dead as a doornail' drive? You must be kidding.
    >
    > > in good working condition, and that you finish the recovery on the clone.
    >
    > For one single bad sector -that likely isn't even bad, just badly written-,
    > that's totally mad.

    Would you mind explaining how come that a boot sector that was written time ago,
    and was functioning properly since its creation, became all in a sudden "badly
    written"?

    Get this, blockhead: Boot sectors aren't rewritten occasionally and don't
    become bad because they were "badly written". In many cases, such incident may
    predict an imminent disk failure.
    --
    NetZ Computing Ltd. ISRAEL www.invircible.com www.ivi.co.il (Hebrew)
    InVircible Virus Defense Solutions, ResQ and Data Recovery Utilities
  20. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Zvi Netiv" <support@replace_with_domain.com> wrote in message
    news:r7jee1l0rbmaopdasmtj9akle27hd1l116@4ax.com...
    > "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
    > > "Zvi Netiv" <support@replace_with_domain.com> wrote in message
    > > > science2003@libero.it wrote:
    >
    > > > If the data in the inaccessible partition is worth the cost of a new drive,
    > > > and the overwriting of the boot sector fails,
    > >
    > > For that to happen the drive must be dead as a doornail. It obviously isn't.
    >
    No, the boot sector was written at shutdown, and the drive lost power.
    I wonder how many bad sectors occur in metadata written at shutdown?

    > Then I must have recovered many "dead" drives. ;-) With all due respect, you
    > don't have the slightest idea on what you are talking about.
    >
    > > > then I recommend that you clone the drive to a new one,
    > >
    > > Clone a 'dead as a doornail' drive? You must be kidding.
    > >
    > > > in good working condition, and that you finish the recovery on the clone.
    > >
    > > For one single bad sector -that likely isn't even bad, just badly written-,
    > > that's totally mad.
    >
    > Would you mind explaining how come that a boot sector that was written time ago,
    > and was functioning properly since its creation, became all in a sudden "badly
    > written"?
    >
    > Get this, blockhead: Boot sectors aren't rewritten occasionally and don't
    > become bad because they were "badly written". In many cases, such incident may
    > predict an imminent disk failure.

    Partly correct. There is nothing to update in FAT16 and NTFS boot sectors.
    There is a field in FAT32's boot sector that is updated.

    I fired up diskmon and forced a dismount of my FAT32 volume. No write to 63.
    I then created a test file, and NT wrote sector 63. Another write wrote 63-64.
  21. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    <science2003@libero.it> wrote in message news:1122468313.346651.224790@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
    > Am I wrong, or the File Allocation (i.e. Order) Table of our messages
    > is not quite right. :)

    Sorry, that doesn't make any sense to me.

    > Any way thank you again for this discussion.
  22. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote in message news:42e4fbd9$0$30314$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net
    > <science2003@libero.it> wrote in message news:1122264815.022376.14280@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
    > > Many thanks for your answers.
    > > To F.R.: Thanks, yes, indeed is the partition bootsector. (sorry, I am
    > > a new DIY, not an expert).
    >
    > Your subject line was actually correct.
    >
    > > A point that seems important is that when I
    > > tested the surface of the HD, this first partition bootsector gives me
    > > "Verify sector error at:59392368".
    >
    > > It seems therefore that the HD is not able to read that sector, not
    > > just that it is corrupted.
    >
    > > Am I correct?
    >
    > Both is correct.

    > The drive can't read it

    Or more important, reports that it can't read it ...

    > because the calculated ECC and the recorded ECC differ,

    > meaning the sector cannot be reliably read,

    Or cannot be relied on ...

    > meaning contents is not reliable, i.e. corrupt. Also known as a bad sector.
    >
    > If this state persists it can only be corrected by overwriting the sector.
    > In this case by using the contents of the back-up bootsector.
    >
    > >
    > > To Joep: Many thanks for your support. I will certainly try to post the
    > > log. But giving the "surface test" do you really think that it is possible to
    > > edit that sector?
    >
    > Not if it stays persistently bad.

    Editing (from a Hex editor perspective) that is:
    reading it then change it's contents and writing it back.
    The reading part will not be possible.
    The sector contents has to be overwritten from a different location.
  23. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    <science2003@libero.it> wrote in message news:1122489633.064055.178760@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
    > > > Am I wrong, or the File Allocation (i.e. Order) Table of our messages
    > > > is not quite right. :)
    >
    > > Sorry, that doesn't make any sense to me
    > Sorry for not be clear enough. Google groups beta (Italy at least)
    > showed on the left panel the list of messages not just in the right
    > order in my browser, i.e. some messages that were post presumably after
    > some others come up in the list before (and obviously viceversa).

    Well, maybe that is why they call it 'beta' then.
  24. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:dc8ker0fr3@enews3.newsguy.com
    > "Zvi Netiv" <support@replace_with_domain.com> wrote in message news:r7jee1l0rbmaopdasmtj9akle27hd1l116@4ax.com...
    > > "Folkert Rienstra" <see_reply-to@myweb.nl> wrote:
    > > > "Zvi Netiv" <support@replace_with_domain.com> wrote in message
    > > > > science2003@libero.it wrote:
    > >
    > > > > If the data in the inaccessible partition is worth the cost of a new drive,
    > > > >
    > > > > and the overwriting of the boot sector fails,
    > > >
    > > > For that to happen the drive must be dead as a doornail. It obviously isn't.
    > >
    > No, the boot sector was written at shutdown, and the drive lost power.

    Sounds like the most plausible, yes.

    > I wonder how many bad sectors occur in metadata written at shutdown?

    One (most likely), two, ten, a hundred, does it really matter?
    It must be in the tens of thousands to qualify for a 'dead as a doornail' drive.

    With only one apparent bad sector it is a sure bet that overwriting that
    sector will clear that same physical sector from being bad or cause a
    replacement to take it's place. For that *not* to happen the drive must
    either be through all of it's spares or have a dead write channel.
    Either one you will be very aware of well before if that happened, unless
    the latter happened at premature shutdown, that would be a real stinker.

    >
    > > Then I must have recovered many "dead" drives. ;-)

    Completely meaningless statement ....

    > > With all due respect,

    .... and an obvious lie.

    > > you don't have the slightest idea on what you are talking about.

    Well, as Eric just proved, you obviously do. *Not*.

    > >
    > > > > then I recommend that you clone the drive to a new one,
    > > >
    > > > Clone a 'dead as a doornail' drive? You must be kidding.
    > > >
    > > > > in good working condition, and that you finish the recovery on the clone.
    > > >
    > > > For one single bad sector -that likely isn't even bad, just badly written-,
    > > > that's totally mad.
    > >
    > > Would you mind explaining how come that a boot sector that was written time ago,
    > > and was functioning properly since its creation, became all in a sudden "badly written"?
    > >

    > > Get this, blockhead:

    Thanks Zvi, for letting me so graciously win this discussion.

    > > Boot sectors aren't rewritten occasionally and don't
    > > become bad because they were "badly written".

    They can in the death throws of a dying system when the power
    fades away. Didn't they call it the Windows shutdown bug.

    > > In many cases, such incident may predict an imminent disk failure.

    Not with only one sector affected. And unless this drive is killing itself
    more and more by every second or minute that it is running there are
    hundreds of thousands of replacement sectors to go through before
    rewriting a sector won't work anymore.

    >
    > Partly correct. There is nothing to update in FAT16 and NTFS boot sectors.
    > There is a field in FAT32's boot sector that is updated.
    >
    > I fired up diskmon and forced a dismount of my FAT32 volume. No write to 63.
    > I then created a test file, and NT wrote sector 63. Another write wrote 63-64.

    Cut the power while that happens and you have a badly written bootsector.
    Now who is the blockhead here, Netiv.
  25. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@hotmail.com> wrote:
    > "Zvi Netiv" <support@replace_with_domain.com> wrote in message

    [...]
    > No, the boot sector was written at shutdown, and the drive lost power.

    Do you know that for a fact? Where from? Or you assume that this is what
    happened? You realize that the boot sector in question is of an extended
    partition, not the boot one (and of a slave drive). Why would such sector be
    rewritten at shutdown time? Does your assertion imply that boot sectors of all
    partitions are rewritten at shutdown?

    [...]
    > > Would you mind explaining how come that a boot sector that was written time ago,
    > > and was functioning properly since its creation, became all in a sudden "badly
    > > written"?
    > >
    > > Boot sectors aren't rewritten occasionally and don't
    > > become bad because they were "badly written". In many cases, such incident may
    > > predict an imminent disk failure.
    >
    > Partly correct. There is nothing to update in FAT16 and NTFS boot sectors.
    > There is a field in FAT32's boot sector that is updated.

    What field is that (please specify its offset)?

    > I fired up diskmon and forced a dismount of my FAT32 volume. No write to 63.
    > I then created a test file, and NT wrote sector 63. Another write wrote 63-64.

    Again, we are talking about sector 59,392,368, way up the drive, not the boot
    partition and not even the boot drive! What is there to update on shutdown?

    You should provide a better explanation than that to substantiate your
    assertion.

    Regards, Zvi
    --
    NetZ Computing Ltd. ISRAEL www.invircible.com www.ivi.co.il (Hebrew)
    InVircible Virus Defense Solutions, ResQ and Data Recovery Utilities
  26. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Zvi Netiv" <support@replace_with_domain.com> wrote in message news:3mihe19p1ug5i3gq4vqo131k4fb24lsu3k@4ax.com...
    > "Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@hotmail.com> wrote:
    > > "Zvi Netiv" <support@replace_with_domain.com> wrote in message
    >
    > [...]
    > > No, the boot sector was written at shutdown, and the drive lost power.
    >
    > Do you know that for a fact? Where from? Or you assume that this is what
    > happened? You realize that the boot sector in question is of an extended
    > partition, not the boot one (and of a slave drive). Why would such sector be
    > rewritten at shutdown time? Does your assertion imply that boot sectors of all
    > partitions are rewritten at shutdown?
    >
    > [...]
    > > > Would you mind explaining how come that a boot sector that was written time ago,
    > > > and was functioning properly since its creation, became all in a sudden "badly
    > > > written"?
    > > >
    > > > Boot sectors aren't rewritten occasionally and don't
    > > > become bad because they were "badly written". In many cases, such incident may
    > > > predict an imminent disk failure.
    > >
    > > Partly correct. There is nothing to update in FAT16 and NTFS boot sectors.
    > > There is a field in FAT32's boot sector that is updated.
    >
    > What field is that (please specify its offset)?

    As if it matters.

    >
    > > I fired up diskmon and forced a dismount of my FAT32 volume. No write to 63.
    > > I then created a test file, and NT wrote sector 63. Another write wrote 63-64.
    >
    > Again, we are talking about sector 59,392,368, way up the drive,
    > not the boot partition and not even the boot drive!

    So what. He forced a dismount of his "FAT32 volume". Who said anything about
    'the boot partition'. And why would a boot partition be treated any different.
    You are looking for straws, Netiv.

    > What is there to update on shutdown?

    Who cares.
    Point is that it was accessed for write which makes it vulnerable when the power dies.

    >
    > You should provide a better explanation than that to substantiate your assertion.

    Ah, the 'it doesn't happen if you can't explain it' response.
    Nice one, very convincing.

    >
    > Regards, Zvi
Ask a new question

Read More

Data Recovery HD Storage