drive j: is unformatted!

[Ratbag]

Thanks, Grump.

I finally managed to get every last byte back. NTFS is fantastic like that.

Recovery methodology also depends to some extent on which version of Windows one is confronted with. I also always install the DOS based emergency recovery console along with the initial installation of Windows. The problem with this very useful program suite is that it cannot be retrofitted.

Checked everything last night at close to midnight.

I have an exact match for total number of files, number of folders and the number of bytes (as distinct from the space occupied on the disks - a different thing, but still an exact match as the cluster size is the same on both disks).

Hunting down the 100-200 byte size discrepancy took a couple of hours ...

The old disk has not had a single error since I installed the pro grade SATA cable and the last boot time CHKDSK. It will be useful as a temporary scratch disk, if nothing else.

I have now started rearranging various blocks of data so that things are more logical. Also reinstalled my accounting program that hasn't worked since a power outage trashed my main invocation of WinXP on this computer a couple of years ago ...

The new HDD loads Adobe Bridge folders about twice as fast as before. The Bridge cache is on the same disk as my main image folders.

All's well that ends well. Bugger about the 4 days down the gurgler though!

 

[idw]

Used to have a mix of seagate and wd drives in a raid 0 (18tb) array in my sound studio for sound bites folly and old work. Only drives to ever fail were seagate drives, all drives where just bog standard 7200 consumer stuff.

I'm still amazed the raid 1 backup mirror i kept when i sold of most my studio equipment still works. It runs 24x7 as a nas and is made of wd green drives in a dell work station you couldn't give away that's had the crappy power in my area blow 3 psu's and 1 motherboard, it also lives on the floor in the garage

 

[lefty]

I recently used Macrium Reflect freeware to clone my 10 yr old server C: to a new WD red. Worked flawlessly

 

[Davidov]

Even though it might seem like overkill at times, I like to protect my data which is why I like to run a UPS on my 12TB NAS and PC. In my experience power issues are pretty much the number one cause of drive failure in a static drive. That and not to skimp on the drives. Hence the three 4TB WD Reds in raid 5.

 

[Ratbag]

Gidday All

Used to have a mix of seagate and wd drives in a raid 0 (18tb) array in my sound studio for sound bites folly and old work. Only drives to ever fail were seagate drives, all drives where just bog standard 7200 consumer stuff.

I'm still amazed the raid 1 backup mirror i kept when i sold of most my studio equipment still works. It runs 24x7 as a nas and is made of wd green drives in a dell work station you couldn't give away that's had the crappy power in my area blow 3 psu's and 1 motherboard, it also lives on the floor in the garage

The overall stats indicate that WD drives are slightly more likely to fail than Seagate drives. Possibly because even Seagate consumer drives run Joule bearings, so are less susceptible to spindle wear. I use Seagate drives as internal drives, and WD for all my portable USB drives. 2x Seagate externals, 1x WD external powered drives.

I recently used Macrium Reflect freeware to clone my 10 yr old server C: to a new WD red. Worked flawlessly

Good to hear, Lefty. I used EaseUS freeware to clone my laptop drive to a new one. It is also a good product, and the price is right ... :iconwink: :biggrin:.

Even though it might seem like overkill at times, I like to protect my data which is why I like to run a UPS on my 12TB NAS and PC. In my experience power issues are pretty much the number one cause of drive failure in a static drive. That and not to skimp on the drives. Hence the three 4TB WD Reds in raid 5.

I am a great advocate for having multiple backups. Having too many backups is like having too many friends or too much good health (It is possible to have too much money, but I would like to try it out at least once ... :rotfl: ).

All RAID systems that are not mirrored are a waste of money, IMHO.
If you are using a stripe set with parity, then it should be mirrored to an identical stripe set with parity.

I do not use a NAS, because even the gigabit Ethernet I use is not fast enough for the large image files I routinely use, or the Adobe Bridge database access. Transferring a 500+ MB file over the network makes for painfully slow working ...

Still not a single error on the old drive. Looks as if CHKDSK has finally found all the flaky sectors ... It figures ...
What's the emoticon for a HDD doing this ?