Recovery Force® Data Recovery Forum

Perhaps better would be to simply compare Spinrite cost, time and results with:

ddrescue
hddsuperclone
R-Studio
R-Studio with DeepSpar USB Stabilizer
UFS Explorer
UFS Explorer with DeepSpar USB Stabilizer
RapidSpar
DeepSpar Disk Imager
MRT DE
PC3000-DE

The problem is, when testing Spinrite in the past, even when I didn't want it, it forced bad sectors to be remapped and 0x00 filled. As far as I'm concerned, that is instant game over.

The problem in the past attempts is that Spinrite can remap sectors to 0x00 without warning and it is tough to find a test drive that doesn't degrade with every test.

Maybe it should be a new drive with each tool we test against Spinrite while also trying to push one drive through them all.

You can wonder if you even do a fair test.

As SpinRite is the only one that 'recovers' in place, any drive it touched will be invalidated, so you'd always need to test it last in line. Which in itself is unfair if we assume the drive continues slowly degrading with every time a tool is tested against it.

But it seems to me an actual test isn't the only valid comparison. Because if testing data recovery tools then in my book for it even to be a data recovery tool it needs to be read-only. And there's all sorts of stuff someone that is serious about data recovery looks for, such as trying to minimize amount of stress put on a drive. SpinRite is simply the opposite of what anyone needing a serious data recovery tool is looking for even though you could argue that if it fixes a drive and regains access to data on a drive is 'data recovery'.

If one were testing SpinRite, the drive would need to be write-protected with a forensic write blocker. I wonder what SpinRite's log would show in such a case?

I wonder how it would handle a Rosewood drive with "moldy" sectors?

Luke:
https://www.grc.com/x/news.exe?cmd=arti ... 2490&utag=

Joep wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2023 10:33 pm Luke better watch out, the gang is mobilized ..

https://www.grc.com/x/news.exe?cmd=arti ... 2490&utag=

Awesome! If our efforts pushes them into the right direction, it is a win.

He didn't say anything about addressing bogus claims such as "flux synthesis", so I wonder what will happen to "Dynastat".

He still adamantly claims that SpinRite hasn't destroyed any drives, but why would he say otherwise?

I have destroyed drives with tools 10 times more careful than SpinRite. I have no reason at all these would still be alive if I used SR on them that would have put 100 times more stress on them. Even if you plug your ears and sing blablabla loudly to prevent hearing someone telling you SR destroyed his drive, the simplest logic tells you that SpinRite must have destroyed drives. Anyone who has worked with sick drives knows this.

And yet it would not surprise me at all if in next Security Now podcast this is spun (is that how it's written?) as some coordinated attack by the data recovery industry because SpinRite is a threat to the business model. Something like that. I usually don't listen but may next time.

If I can get some free promotion from it, all won't be lost.

The funny thing is, as one could argue my bias, it doesn't explain yours or Franc's perspective. They may be portraying us as the villains when, in reality, our main objective is to protect people from unnecessary data loss.

Now that I think about it, Spinrite in its current form is as much a data recovery program as RAID is a backup solution.

look at this advertisement .. he's already claiming not using BIOS int13h in that ..

The other thing with that ad is that Gibson is claiming that SpinRite "rigorously analyzes the disk's surface with hundreds of new data testing patterns". However, in the following post he is saying that “Flux Synthesis” technology was abandoned around the time of SR 3.1:

https://forums.grc.com/threads/interpre ... post-10199

This was after I pointed out that the user's data are scrambled at the first stage of the write channel, so the data that SR thinks it is writing is not what is actually written to platters. This was the case at least as far back as 1995, possibly much earlier.