Recovery Force® Data Recovery Forum

Joep wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2023 9:40 pmIf 2 we get either nothing (as drive response is binary: either (corrected) data or error + no data).

Actually, there is at least one well known exception involving "moLD" or "241A" sectors in Seagate Rosewood drives.

https://groups.google.com/g/datarecover ... 5iuWTVCAAJ
https://groups.google.com/group/datarec ... 0.1&view=1 (sector dump)

I can't begin to imagine what SpinRite would do with it.

What did Mr Gish Gallop do that made this happen? Wonder if he used FORCEBIOS?

Looking at his bug report again, I think he forced use of USBCHK to access the full USB drive as SCSI.
But probably failed to to the proper hash checks and is seeing the 137GB BIOS USB Limit Bug.
That would explain the corruption.

...

CrazyTeeka wrote: ↑Thu Nov 23, 2023 4:51 am What did Mr Gish Gallop do that made this happen? Wonder if he used FORCEBIOS?

Looking at his bug report again, I think he forced use of USBCHK to access the full USB drive as SCSI.
But probably failed to to the proper hash checks and is seeing the 137GB BIOS USB Limit Bug.
That would explain the corruption.

...
Screenshot 2023-11-23 044755.png

File I/O is a DOS function and so this essentially a DOS issue. And a drive full issue. With testers like him it will be another few years until 6.1 hits the streets.

fzabkar wrote: ↑Thu Nov 23, 2023 12:08 am

Joep wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2023 9:40 pmIf 2 we get either nothing (as drive response is binary: either (corrected) data or error + no data).

Actually, there is at least one well known exception involving "moLD" or "241A" sectors in Seagate Rosewood drives.

https://groups.google.com/g/datarecover ... 5iuWTVCAAJ
https://groups.google.com/group/datarec ... 0.1&view=1 (sector dump)

I can't begin to imagine what SpinRite would do with it.

Quite so, it will never be able to catch firmware issues unless data in sectors is evaluated against some known issues like moLD. What I should have said is that theoretically result is binary, result = data or result = no data.

When it comes to mOLD and btec sectors on SMR Seagates, that actually may save a client's data from Spinrite, assuming that every read is with a long timeout. If under 500ms, those sectors will report as bad, rather than give garbage data.

The scenario is not much different than my Seagate Grenada with the weak/bad head, other than the mOLD data in bad sectors on long read timeouts.

I find it interesting and alarming that drives write/return bogus data. In essence USBC issue is in this category as well, https://www.disktuna.com/sudden-appeara ... and-files/.

I've never heard of mOLD and btec sectors before. More stuff to learn about.

CrazyTeeka wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2023 9:41 am I've never heard of mOLD and btec sectors before. More stuff to learn about.

https://www.recoveryforce.com/forums/vi ... .php?t=595

I had Sean from PC IMAGE check the G-List, it was empty. So "spinrite level 2,dynastat 0" must have repaired those 81 sectors and returned them to use. Wasn't a reallocation or there would have been entries in the G-List.

So those sectors could have been too weak to read, but a write refreshed them.

PC IMAGE wiped and added that drive to their stock of donor drives.

Kind of ironic that it failed at 97%. To the best of my knowledge, it was not a hard failure and I assume that there is no data of any value to worry about.

https://forums.grc.com/threads/ssd-has- ... line.1385/