HDD data recovery

formula400

formula400

Suspended / Banned
Messages
775
Name
lewis
Edit My Images
Yes
right my external hdd has stopped working and it giving me a I/O device error.

i have all my photo`s on here 60gb and i need them, i have slowly been copying everything to my new drives but had not got to the pics, and after a week of being away and it not being used it gone tits up.


what are my options????
 
There is a good chance that it may just be the enclosure which is faulty, and it is worth buying an alternative one or mounting the drive in your machine to check this before considering the expense of full data recovery.

I know it is too late but it does show the need for and the value of full backups
 
Take it to a specialist....they should be able to help you.
 
Take the drive out of the external casing. It will either be ide or sata. Once you find out which it is, purchase an external housing (very cheap on ebay). Place in new casing and hopefully everything will be fine, as it's usually the casing that causes issues, not the actually drive.

If, once you connected it up via the new housing, it will still not read, then you are looking at specialist data recovery options, which are not cheap!

Also, learn from this episode and ensure that, in future, you backup on a regular basis.
 
I have been in a similar situation and lost all my pictures. I really hope you can get the data recovered. I would try already suggested above or take it to data recovery firms.
 
9 times out of 10 its the enclosure that fails on external drives.

data recovery can run into 100's of pounds.

RULE 1 OF COMPUTING - KEEP MULTIPLE COPIES OF ALL IMPORTANT DATA

(sorry for caps but its an important point)
 
neil_g said:
9 times out of 10 its the enclosure that fails on external drives.

data recovery can run into 100's of pounds.

RULE 1 OF COMPUTING - KEEP MULTIPLE COPIES OF ALL IMPORTANT DATA

(sorry for caps but its an important point)
Click to expand...

Not sure if I agree with 9/10 bit as I always thought its the HDD being a mechanical item fails more frequently. Though you are right about the cost of data recovery. I was quoted anything between £50 to £200+ for the recovery costs.
 
Data recovery can run into 1000's of pounds.

If you can't find a local business to have a look at the drive, PC World offer a service to try and recover the data. They don't open the drive itself, so there is no risk by letting them have it. I think the service is about £25 if they can access the data (free if not), so it's a good and cheap first option.

Failing that, you need to get it off to the pro's.

On Track are a reputable company: http://www.ontrackdatarecovery.co.uk/index.aspx

Do not open the drive.
 
bindi said:
Not sure if I agree with 9/10 bit as I always thought its the HDD being a mechanical item fails more frequently. Though you are right about the cost of data recovery. I was quoted anything between £50 to £200+ for the recovery costs.
Click to expand...

unfortunately the cheap mass produced enclosures are the weakest link a lot of the time.. :(

BarryG said:
Do not open the drive.
Click to expand...

why?
 
Because you will up recovery costs ten fold if any dust gets on the platters.

I am talking about the drive by the way, not the casing.
 
Just to clarify BarryG's comment, don't attempt to remove any screws on, or physically disassemble the physical hard disk itself.

Removing the hard disk from the USB enclosure and either connecting it directly to drive cables within PC (assuming that they're compatible types) or putting it into another USB enclosure is, as has already been said, the first step to take. In most cases it's the enclosure that fails and the disk itself is fine.

Don't take it to PC World - all they'll do is try what has already been described and to be honest, I wouldn't trust them with one of my hard disks.
 
You can open the drive and look at the platters, but you'll need to look like this;

LOL

platter%20removal%20-large.jpg
 
I've had drives recovered before by ontrack. I think it was a 48 hour turnarond, but it certainly wasn't cheap, about £1400 from memory. You may find cheaper but it's a highly specialist area so if your data is critical proceed with caution.

If it's the drive itself faulty it's likely to be either the electronics or the head assembly, which requires a clean room to remove the platters and put in another drive of the same model.

As others have said more often than not it's the USB/Firewire bridge that fails with external drives. It is quite literally a 10 minute job at the most to remove the drive from the case and put in a new one, a shop shouldn't charge you more than £25. It's very easy to do yourself.

Definately do not open the drive itself.
 
This is what a friend emailed me after her HD failed last year:

The Data Recovery Lab where I told you I was going to take it in the first instance ended up not being the best solution as it seemed!

* Even though their initial email gave an estimate of £250-350, they quoted £850 EXCLUDING VAT after seeing the drive
* And they estimated they could recover 97% of the data!
* I had to call them several times before they even gave me a quote (every time I spoke to someone different, and none of them seemed to have a clue what to tell me - until I finally managed to speak to the right person!)
* There was something about the place that didn't really give me confidence: it looked like a cross between a shack and someone's garage, the staff were walking around barefeet, wires and electronic parts lying everywhere... Very odd!

So after that, I decided to go with Ontrack.

* They seemed much more trustworthy and respectable (e.g. their office was in a proper office building)
* Even though they charged an assessment fee, I knew exactly what'd I'd have to pay if I decided to move forward with them (they gave me a fixed price from the start, not a quote). In the end I paid £700 in total including VAT (also including the assessment). Even though I consider that to be a lot, it was still a lot better than £850 excluding VAT!
* They were really professional, I had my own advisor, emailing me updates every day on the status of the data recovery, and she was very helpful and efficient when I spoke to her on the phone.
* They also sent me a report before I gave them the go ahead which showed exactly what files they would be recovering - which was 100%!!


So beware those low initial quotes, which no doubt aren't for having to physically open the drive to fix a mechanical failure.
 
cheers guys, i have a guy who fixed my lap top looking at it, i tired a new case and still no joy.

just hoping to get some stuff back from it.
 
Sorry if I'm rambling on, just trying to share my experiences.

Just a note about OnTrack. When I've dealt with them before yes they're very professional and probably one of the best in the business. They have several different turnaround times at different prices, the clients I was dealing with needed their data back as soon as possible as it was business critical so paying twice as much for 2 or 3 days less without their data was worth it to them.

They have a large stock of working drives that they can literally just put your platters into, and have agreements with the manufacturers to get the info they need on the workings of a drive or obtain virtually any parts they need that are older or more obscure. That in part is why they can seem expensive. In my case they sent drives out that were identical in data terms to the failed ones, 100% recovered. They were both electrical faults.

I'd also imagine that some of the outfits offering data recovery are intending to do it with just software, then farm out to the likes of OnTrack if they cannot recover any data.

Another company I've had good experiences with that offer similar services to OnTrack is Christie Storage Solutions in Stroud, but there are bound to be others that are as capable and trustworthy.


Just a side note, form my personal stuff I've had 2 hard drive failures in 5 years but never lost a single byte of data. I have a RAID 5 array (8 500g drives, just under 3.5 tb useable space) so if a drive does die I just replace it, wait 12 hours or so and the array is rebuilt and fully recovered. Overkill maybe but I hate using optical media.

Depending on the solution, RAID is fine for most home users to use for backup purposes. It is only a problem with RAID 5 when 2 drives go down at the same time (which can be solved with another raid level or additional parity drive/hot spare). Obviously if something happens in the building where the drive cage is then I'm stuffed as I don't have an offsite backup.

I've got quite a lot of experience with storage, RAID and NAS systems from 2 drive setups to considerably larger ones so If you do decide to go that route and have any questions I'm more than happy to help if I can.
 
Last edited:
juno said:
Just a side note, form my personal stuff I've had 2 hard drive failures in 5 years but never lost a single byte of data. I have a RAID 5 array (8 500g drives, just under 3.5 tb useable space) so if a drive does die I just replace it, wait 12 hours or so and the array is rebuilt and fully recovered. Overkill maybe but I hate using optical media.

Depending on the solution, RAID is fine for most home users to use for backup purposes. It is only a problem with RAID 5 when 2 drives go down at the same time (which can be solved with another raid level or additional parity drive/hot spare). Obviously if something happens in the building where the drive cage is then I'm stuffed as I don't have an offsite backup.

I've got quite a lot of experience with storage, RAID and NAS systems from 2 drive setups to considerably larger ones so If you do decide to go that route and have any questions I'm more than happy to help if I can.
Click to expand...

dear god no. DO NOT USE RAID AS A BACKUP.
 
neil_g said:
dear god no. DO NOT USE RAID AS A BACKUP.
Click to expand...

Ok my statement you highlighted is a bit vague, but yours is not specific enough to mean anything, capitals or no capitals. If you're saying that one single raid as the main storage will not protect against user error ie deleting a file then yes you are correct. And there's natural disaster as well, but that's not the biggest reason most home users lose data from what I have seen. I stand by RAID used in the correct way is absolutely fine for the most basic backup strategy, and from what has been posted so far even just having 2 disks in RAID1 even with the main copy of the data would most likely have meant that the OP would have not lost any data and not need the services of the likes of OnTrack etc to recover the data.

Using cheaper raid solutions on your working copy of your data is by no means ideal, but it certainly is better than nothing. For most people in this day and age it's the only viable solution. Backup isn't really the right term in this case, you are just adding redundancy in case of drive failure.

Here's how I work. My setup at home consists of 4 computers, 3 are mainly for my use and the fourth is a family machine. Each has it's own working data on local drives. Then there is the server, where the raid 5 resides directly attached through a hardware raid card mainly for backup and archiving of all of the computers, which is done over both manual and scripted methods depending on the data. So there are 4 computers in total, the server is mainly used for backup of data from the others and some storage of some not so critical stuff, but it does perform other functions that do not rely on data. There is also a super fast wired network for accessing the raid on the server from my computers.

Generally I don't work off the raid. Although I can for most things if I need to because of the gigabit network which has jumbo frames, though I would generally work from a second copy rather than the original. Some stuff does get stored offsite at a friends and I store stuff for him just in case of a disaster, mainly unfinished projects on a 2 drive raid 1 caddy, and some stuff on archive grade DVD's.

As I said, I've never lost any data in 5 years and never had to resort to the offsite copy, but I'm careful about deleting stuff and how I work. Apart from upgrading the storage soon, I have no intention of changing anything as it's a tried and tested method.
 
Last edited:
The use of RAID doesn't replace regular backups it just provides additional resilience to the system meaning that if you do get a single disk failure, you can carry on working. Systems using RAID should still be backed up regularly.

SAN/NAS/RAID, it all still needs backing up regularly.
 
juno said:
*snip*
Click to expand...

no offence but ive said it about a million times on here and really didnt want the hassle of repeating myself again, but seeing as we're here..

RAID will not protect against:

fire
theft
file deletion
file corruption
hardware failure (even with high grade kit) - yes ive seen it happen with server kit costing several hundreds of pounds for an array controller which ended up nuking all attached drives

it is NOT (even RAID1) designed as a form of backup and should NEVER be treated as such, it is PURELY a method of providing 365/24/7 up time on business critical machines. and even then we (we being work, a national retailer) would NEVER concider running any of our 30 or so servers with RAID (mostly 1 and 5) arrays without several layers of backup to other hard drive arrays and LTO3 tape libraries as well as replication off site.

is that a more acceptable use of capitals?

sorry if thats a little ranty but im a little bored of correcting people on the uses of RAID as like i say its been covered a few times.. for a home user there simply is no need to be using RAID in my opinion with the correct backup plan.

but your data, your choice. even at home my RAID5 array is backed up to USB hard disk and blu-ray and taken off site. but i guess thats the paranoia that comes with looking after servers professionally.
 
Last edited:
RAID is not a back up, but RAID can prevent a single or double HD failure. It doesn't mean you should not have another copy, preferably off site.

Anyway...the topic of THIS thread is HD failure, and if OP had RAID then we won't be here would we? So RAID has its place, even at home.
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
Anyway...the topic of THIS thread is HD failure, and if OP had RAID then we won't be here would we? So RAID has its place, even at home.
Click to expand...

maybe, maybe not. but i stand by the fact that the average home user does not understand RAID and can/will incorrectly assume that their data is safe. when in fact the same result can be acheived with external hard drives and a free sync program off the interweb and/or (preferably and, more copies = more safety) optical media burning.

again appologies for the "ranting" but the words "backup and "RAID" in my line of work do not belong together.
 
neil_g said:
RAID will not protect against:

fire
theft
file deletion
file corruption
Click to expand...

Never said it would. It's an acceptable first step and is better than nothing at all. It also requires little user interaction once set up. Using RAID to protect from drive failure is perfectly acceptable. Many people I know have been glad they did invest in an extra disk or two when one went belly up.

neil_g said:
hardware failure (even with high grade kit) - yes ive seen it happen with server kit costing several hundreds of pounds for an array controller which ended up nuking all attached drives
Click to expand...

Never experienced that myself, after 15 years in supporting and managing several large infrastructures and neither have any of the current admins in the data centre hosting 300+ servers where I currently work. Though I have seen people say it on forums many times. My strategy covers all your points so far if you go back and check.

neil_g said:
it is NOT (even RAID1) designed as a form of backup and should NEVER be treated as such, it is PURELY a method of providing 365/24/7 up time on business critical machines. and even then we (we being work, a national retailer) would NEVER concider running any of our 30 or so servers with RAID (mostly 1 and 5) arrays without several layers of backup to other hard drive arrays and LTO3 tape libraries as well as replication off site.
Click to expand...

RAID has 3 purposes. To add redundancy, increase speed, and increase total volume size. If the OP had this drive mirrored the risk of data loss would have been reduced. A third backup drive would have reduced the risk even further. Bringing LTO libraries into the discussion is completely ridiculous. Obviously a library is an essential component of a backup plan for business critical data, but for home users??? which if I am not mistaken is what this discussion is about?

neil_g said:
sorry if thats a little ranty but im a little bored of correcting people on the uses of RAID as like i say its been covered a few times.. for a home user there simply is no need to be using RAID in my opinion with the correct backup plan.
Click to expand...

Yes a rant maybe but you're not correcting me. As I said in my last post, my RAID serves as part of my backup and storage plan. It serves 2 purposes for me - a location to back up to and as secondary fast storage. The important data is backed up either to archive grade optical media or a second drive that is also mirrored.

neil_g said:
but your data, your choice. even at home my RAID5 array is backed up to USB hard disk and blu-ray and taken off site. but i guess thats the paranoia that comes with looking after servers professionally.
Click to expand...

Ah so you have RAID5 at your house, but it's somehow not suitable for myself or others? If you actually read my post instead of picking out sentences that fulfil your crusade against using RAID at home you would see that my strategy is not that different to what you have stated yours is.


I stand by what I said, adding a second drive in RAID1 is a good start for the average home user. Anything additional is a bonus.
 
Last edited:
juno said:
I stand by what I said, adding a second drive in RAID1 is a good start for the average home user. Anything additional is a bonus.
Click to expand...

Mine

:p






p.s. the 474G content is a MIRROR back up of my External HD that is connected to my iMac.
 
Last edited:
neil_g said:
maybe, maybe not. but i stand by the fact that the average home user does not understand RAID and can/will incorrectly assume that their data is safe.
Click to expand...

Data is never "safe", unless you spend hundreds of thousands of pounds, but you can make it safer for little extra cash.

neil_g said:
when in fact the same result can be acheived with external hard drives and a free sync program off the interweb and/or (preferably and, more copies = more safety) optical media burning.
Click to expand...

No difference really. Sync programs need to be allowed to run, which takes time. Even cheap RAID solutions are more or less instant. Most home users don't stick to a backup plan, and optical media costs money.


neil_g said:
again appologies for the "ranting" but the words "backup and "RAID" in my line of work do not belong together.
Click to expand...

They absolutely can come under the same umbrella, although they do have clear specific meanings of their own. And it would appear my line of work is not that different from what you claim yours is.
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
Mine

:p
p.s. the 474G content is a MIRROR back up of my External HD that is connected to my iMac.
Click to expand...

Good stuff, with hard drives so cheap nowadays, why not?

Similar setup myself, 8 disk RAID 5 as a backup location and secondary storage. Critical stuff gets backed up to another external quad drive caddy with the occasional archive to DVD of finished remixes and stuff for offsite storage.

Bizarrely, I've just had an email to say a bad block has been located on one of my disks!!! Luckily I have a spare to hand. ;)
 
juno said:
Ah so you have RAID5 at your house, but it's somehow not suitable for myself or others? If you actually read my post instead of picking out sentences that fulfil your crusade against using RAID at home you would see that my strategy is not that different to what you have stated yours is.
Click to expand...

Never experienced that myself, after 15 years in supporting and managing several large infrastructures and neither have any of the current admins in the data centre hosting 300+ servers where I currently work. Though I have seen people say it on forums many times. My strategy covers all your points so far if you go back and check.
Click to expand...

i have a feeling this could go back and forward for a while but to respond to these points in particular, first off i wouldnt say im the average user. day job is a systems admin, weekend job is running an events photography business so ideally i need the spanned expandable storage with redundancy to keep money coming in even with a disk down. and like i say its not my only point of storage (which is where my argument is being aimed).

as for never seeing that yourself, i have twice in my 10 years in IT. both cases on high grade server kit and both cases required full restores from tape.

to reiterate my point (if it/i got blurred with last nights red wine), RAID should not be used as a single point of storage. even RAID1. at the end of the day if it was a 100% safe method of storage we would turn off our tape libraries and off site replication.
 
First off, I am not a professional forum poster and I do realise I don't post that well, but that's another issue with reasons I won't go into. But I like to debate, so....

neil_g said:
i have a feeling this could go back and forward for a while but to respond to these points in particular, first off i wouldnt say im the average user. day job is a systems admin, weekend job is running an events photography business so ideally i need the spanned expandable storage with redundancy to keep money coming in even with a disk down. and like i say its not my only point of storage (which is where my argument is being aimed).
Click to expand...

Yep it can go back and forth :D In the day I'm a systems admin also. My hobby, and to some extent in the past an additional source of income is making music. Most of the stuff I keep on my RAID is audio material that I frequently need to hand. I use the RAID for similar reasons to yourself, to prevent against drive failure, expand beyond 500Gb storage (maximum at the time I bought the disks) and as a secondary dumping ground to get stuff off the local disks.

I do have weekly updated offsite copies on hard drives, and some redundant material on archive grade DVD's

neil_g said:
as for never seeing that yourself, i have twice in my 10 years in IT. both cases on high grade server kit and both cases required full restores from tape.
Click to expand...

Well that's just my experience, not denying it can't happen. It's just as likely the onboard controller on your mainboard can cause a similar issue, so I don't see it as an argument against RAID.

neil_g said:
to reiterate my point (if it/i got blurred with last nights red wine), RAID should not be used as a single point of storage. even RAID1. at the end of the day if it was a 100% safe method of storage we would turn off our tape libraries and off site replication.
Click to expand...

That statement sits better with me than some of your previous. Still, RAID 1 or RAID 5 is still better than one single disk if for nothing else to prevent against single drive failure. No it's not 100% safe. But it is a start.

Even in a corporate setting it's not uncommon for the onsite backup to be made to an additional RAID. That's essentially what I'm doing at home. I have other copies as well if required.

I agree that tape libraries for offsite storage are essential in a corporate environment, but they are not really within the reach of most home users.



I still disagree with your signature statement. It is an incorrect response to a very broad question and needs some elaboration as you have provided above to be worthwhile or meaningful. 'Backup' is a very broad term and as our discussion has demonstrated can be interpreted in different ways.
 
Last edited:
well thanks for all the comments people, i tired a new enclosure but no luck, in the end i took it to a local guy who was in the paper (i 1st used him when i buggered my laptop),
, he said the drive would show up, but could`t be read, he tried using new caddys, putting it in a pc and a few other things.he managed to get it all off and put it on another HDD. plus he only charged me £50.
 
Glad you got it sorted mate. I make backups of my backups of my backups!! lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top