Catastrophic failure - Error Read LBA: -1

[gianogli]

We are trying to recover some files from a WD hdd with, we suppose, a broken head (4 heads in total!).
Into the used partition there is a FAT32 filesystem with a lot of deleted folders.
If we try to click over the deleted folders we are almost always able to see the subfolders and to save a lot of files. If we click over the "not deleted" folders, instead, we always have a "Catastrophic failure - Error Read LBA: -1". Why? Is there a way to try to solve that problem without replace the head stack?
(The FAT32 filesystem structure is not corrupted)



Thanks,
gianogli

[Amarbir[CDR-Labs]]

Well,
Its a Very Wrong Way To Recover DATA .First of All Wipe Clean a HDD of Same Or Higher Capacity ,Then Clone This Defective HDD To The Drive You Erased Ad Wiped Clean .Then Click on To Setting And Select "Work With Copy ". Then You Will Be Working With a Clone Copy And Not a Patient HDD .After This You Can Close DE And Go To Main Utilities Window And Mount The Drive As Read Only In a Windows Based System ,Then Try To Analyse This Drive By Deep Scanning With R-Studio , Getdataback Or EaseUS .Please Posts Results .No Drive Has -1 LBA And Hnce You Get This Error "100% This is Something To Do How The Drive Is Parsing FAT32 With a Damaged Head 4

[rdallasb]

gianogli, Is head 3 completely dead or just getting lots of errors when imaging or access data? Have you fully tested sectors relating to that head to find out? There is no way to correct the errors you are getting without a head change due to the fact that the errors are because the filesystem data cannot be fully read. I would suggest imaging the 3 good heads then changing the heads to see if you can get head 3. Its safer to get what you can now before doing any physical work, unless you hear clicking or other sounds while the drive is running. Then I would say, change the heads before things get worse.

Amarbir, What exactly is wrong with imaging and working with data in DE? DE would actually provide much more analytical data related to the files that are damaged by missing or unread sectors than other off the shelf tools found on the internet. I am a little surprised that you would suggest that considering the nature of the problem. If all heads/sectors could be imaged then I might would agree with you. But in this case where not all sectors or heads might not be fully imaged, then using DE makes way more sense.

Although I say all of this never having used the PC3K Portable. Maybe there are limitations in this device/software that I am unaware of. If so, then I will shut up and go away.

Peace!

[Amarbir[CDR-Labs]]

Source of the post Amarbir, What exactly is wrong with imaging and working with data in DE? DE would actually provide much more analytical data related to the files that are damaged by missing or unread sectors than other off the shelf tools found on the internet. I am a little surprised that you would suggest that considering the nature of the problem. If all heads/sectors could be imaged then I might would agree with you. But in this case where not all sectors or heads might not be fully imaged, then using DE makes way more sense.

Well Buddy ,
Here Is The Reply

1 : What exactly is wrong with imaging and working with data in DE?
Answer : Nothing But The Method Is Wrong "He is Working directly On The Ailing Patient ".Is It Wrong To Suggest That He Clones all Working Heads To a New HDD And Then Switch DE To work With that Drive And Work ? . I am Surprised

2 : DE would actually provide much more analytical data related to the files that are damaged by missing or unread sectors than other off the shelf tools found on the internet. I am a little surprised that you would suggest that considering the nature of the problem.
Answer : Well Take a Fully Working Drive With 4 Heads Clone Just 2 or three Heads And Then Try Your Method and Mine You Will Be Surprised ,These Are Not Off The Shelf Tool [ These Tools Are Industry Leaders In Logical And RAW Data Recovery Buddy ] .

3 : If all heads/sectors could be imaged then I might would agree with you. But in this case where not all sectors or heads might not be fully imaged, then using DE makes way more sense.
Answer : If All Heads Were Imaged Even Windows Explorer Would Do The Job ,What Are You Saying and Talking ? It Makes No Sense

PS : No Difference In PC 3000 Portable/UDMa And Express BTW

[hdd_sand]

"Amarbir[CDR-Labs] says:
04/12/2016 at 19:33
Wow,
Now This is even More Interesting .DE Is a Vast Tool ,My Experience of Using It Since 6 Months Is Not even 10% What It Can Do .Well Everyday is a Learning Day .Keep These Blogs rolling ,In India We Say ” Yeh Dil Mangey More ” Means This Heart Wants More And More "


Amarbir, how can you say is wrong if you admit you dont have enough experience with DE?? working with it only 6 months and know only 10% of the capabilities..... your own words......Buddy!

[rdallasb]

Amarbir, I have been doing Data Recovery since late 97. My first PC3K was the ISA version. So I think I can safely say that my points are valid. I use DE on a daily basis straight from the source to recover client critical data. Any engineer or tech worth there weight in salt will tell you that no single software or hardware can do everything and will always have the best results, so of course I would not say that the other programs you mentioned aren't good to use when the occasion is right. But there is no way I can read you tell someone that using DE to image data straight from the patient is the "wrong" way to do Data Recovery. That is just silly. It isn't wrong to suggest other methods, it's wrong to be condescending and say that their methods are purely wrong in the way it is being done. When in fact, its not. Its just a different way to go about it.

To further my point here, I will explain what I mean....

While tools like R-Studio and UFSExplorer are more intuitive with file systems, they will not give reports on what data is affected by the missing sectors during imaging. So yes, imaging all sectors available and running a scan with such programs will result in partial structure and the rest with RAW. This is sort of Data Recovery 101. But with DE after imaging, you can also get reports on what data will be partial or completely bad due to missing sectors. And run RAW data scans for the rest.

So you tell me Amarbir, how can you tell someone, and I quote, "Its a Very Wrong Way To Recover DATA". When I have successfully used this method time and time again.

[Amarbir[CDR-Labs]]

Source of the post "Amarbir[CDR-Labs] says:
04/12/2016 at 19:33
Wow,
Now This is even More Interesting .DE Is a Vast Tool ,My Experience of Using It Since 6 Months Is Not even 10% What It Can Do .Well Everyday is a Learning Day .Keep These Blogs rolling ,In India We Say ” Yeh Dil Mangey More ” Means This Heart Wants More And More "


Amarbir, how can you say is wrong if you admit you dont have enough experience with DE?? working with it only 6 months and know only 10% of the capabilities..... your own words......Buddy!

Well,
You Are Trying To Put My Own Words Into My Mouth ,I Will Really Appreciate If You Can Respond In Context To This Discussion [ Like This Either One Of Us Will Learn Something ] .I Never Consider To Me the GURU In everything But i Got Good Experience

[Amarbir[CDR-Labs]]

Source of the post Amarbir, I have been doing Data Recovery since late 97. My first PC3K was the ISA version. So I think I can safely say that my points are valid. I use DE on a daily basis straight from the source to recover client critical data. Any engineer or tech worth there weight in salt will tell you that no single software or hardware can do everything and will always have the best results, so of course I would not say that the other programs you mentioned aren't good to use when the occasion is right. But there is no way I can read you tell someone that using DE to image data straight from the patient is the "wrong" way to do Data Recovery. That is just silly. It isn't wrong to suggest other methods, it's wrong to be condescending and say that their methods are purely wrong in the way it is being done. When in fact, its not. Its just a different way to go about it.

To further my point here, I will explain what I mean....

While tools like R-Studio and UFSExplorer are more intuitive with file systems, they will not give reports on what data is affected by the missing sectors during imaging. So yes, imaging all sectors available and running a scan with such programs will result in partial structure and the rest with RAW. This is sort of Data Recovery 101. But with DE after imaging, you can also get reports on what data will be partial or completely bad due to missing sectors. And run RAW data scans for the rest.

So you tell me Amarbir, how can you tell someone, and I quote, "Its a Very Wrong Way To Recover DATA". When I have successfully used this method time and time again.

Sir ,
My Response As Under To Your Viewpoint

Question : Amarbir, I have been doing Data Recovery since late 97. My first PC3K was the ISA version. So I think I can safely say that my points are valid.
Answer : Thats Your Viewpoint ,I Have Access To 1 Unit PC3K ISA + 2 Units Of PCI Sinces ages " Hence I Too Can Say The Same ".We In India Still Get Old HDD Seldom And Hence I Still Enjoy Using Those Tools

Question : I use DE on a daily basis straight from the source to recover client critical data.
Answer : You Might Be I Do Not Work directly On Mechanically Failing and Ailing Drives

Question : Any engineer or tech worth there weight in salt will tell you that no single software or hardware can do everything and will always have the best results, so of course I would not say that the other programs you mentioned aren't good to use when the occasion is right
Answer :I Never Said so That There is a Single Software For all Problems Related To Hard Drives

Question : But there is no way I can read you tell someone that using DE to image data straight from the patient is the "wrong" way to do Data Recovery. That is just silly. It isn't wrong to suggest other methods, it's wrong to be condescending and say that their methods are purely wrong in the way it is being done. When in fact, its not. Its just a different way to go about it.
Answer : Thats Your Method But We At CDRLabs To Not Play Around With Failing Hard Drives To Recover Data .You Have Your Method And Viewpoint An i Have Mine ,Now It Depends on Other People What They Think is correct and use .

Question : While tools like R-Studio and UFSExplorer are more intuitive with file systems, they will not give reports on what data is affected by the missing sectors during imaging. So yes, imaging all sectors available and running a scan with such programs will result in partial structure and the rest with RAW. This is sort of Data Recovery 101. But with DE after imaging, you can also get reports on what data will be partial or completely bad due to missing sectors. And run RAW data scans for the rest.
Answer : When a Program Has Not Imaged a Drive And Does Not Have a MAP Of Read,Unread And Failed Read Sector How Can they Give this Report ,This is Silly To Think and Assume "I Did Not Say This Ever " . You Said Imaging All Sectors And Running a Scan With Result In Partial Sectors And Rest With RAW "If All Sectors Are Imaged Even The Most Useless Software Will Show Everything Properly " And If Some Sections Like MFT Etc Are Not Imaged By DE Properly Even DE Is Gonna Get Baffled .

Question :But with DE after imaging, you can also get reports on what data will be partial or completely bad due to missing sectors. And run RAW data scans for the rest.
Answer : Well As DE Has a MAP of Imaged Sectors It Will/Can Shift All Problem Files To iProblem Folder For Sure .What did You Say Regarding RAW Here "It Makes No Sense " ,You Are Saying We Run RAW Data Scan For Rest "Which Rest All Problem Files And completely Bad Files Are already in iProblem Folder ,Running Raw On Those files will Not Generate Better Results At All .

PS : My Main Point Was to Explain The Thread starter How i Work Or What i Feel

[hdd_sand]

Source of the post "Amarbir[CDR-Labs] says:
You Are Trying To Put My Own Words Into My Mouth

Dude I'm not trying to putting word in your mouth.... it came right out of YOUR mouth. but anyways... peace out! Buddy...

[Amarbir[CDR-Labs]]

Source of the post

Source of the post "Amarbir[CDR-Labs] says:
You Are Trying To Put My Own Words Into My Mouth

Dude I'm not trying to putting word in your mouth.... it came right out of YOUR mouth. but anyways... peace out! Buddy...

Well,
I Repeat again " Counter Me On My questions And Knowledge " ,Right Here in this Thread .BTW My 10% Is Better The Many Others 100% Lol ,You Have Nothing To Write about/Advise Or Share Atleast To This Thread ,If You Do Please Write It I would Be So Eager To Learn From Such Experienced DR Tech Like you As Stated By a Few On HDDGURU .

[rdallasb]

Question : Amarbir, I have been doing Data Recovery since late 97. My first PC3K was the ISA version. So I think I can safely say that my points are valid.
Answer : Thats Your Viewpoint ,I Have Access To 1 Unit PC3K ISA + 2 Units Of PCI Sinces ages " Hence I Too Can Say The Same ".We In India Still Get Old HDD Seldom And Hence I Still Enjoy Using Those Tools
Good, but my point was that you were not talking to someone who just started doing Data Recovery.

Question : I use DE on a daily basis straight from the source to recover client critical data.
Answer : You Might Be I Do Not Work directly On Mechanically Failing and Ailing Drives
So you are to tell me that you have never used DE to quickly recover a few critical files that your client said are most important? This is one of the most important reasons of having DE. To go straight after critical data when a drive might not last long enough to make a complete image.

Question : Any engineer or tech worth there weight in salt will tell you that no single software or hardware can do everything and will always have the best results, so of course I would not say that the other programs you mentioned aren't good to use when the occasion is right
Answer :I Never Said so That There is a Single Software For all Problems Related To Hard Drives
That was not the intent of my comment, I meant that you were right, there are many good tools for logical recovery. But if a drive is physically unstable and might not last long, DE is the perfect choice for ensuring that you get client critical data.

Question : But there is no way I can read you tell someone that using DE to image data straight from the patient is the "wrong" way to do Data Recovery. That is just silly. It isn't wrong to suggest other methods, it's wrong to be condescending and say that their methods are purely wrong in the way it is being done. When in fact, its not. Its just a different way to go about it.
Answer : Thats Your Method But We At CDRLabs To Not Play Around With Failing Hard Drives To Recover Data .You Have Your Method And Viewpoint An i Have Mine ,Now It Depends on Other People What They Think is correct and use .
A perfect example of your condescending attitude and tone. You are saying that my method would be considered "playing around" with hard drives instead of being a professional like you who does not "play around" with hard drives. Again, one of the biggest strengths of having DE is to recover critical data while you still have a chance to do so. This cannot be argued.

Question : While tools like R-Studio and UFSExplorer are more intuitive with file systems, they will not give reports on what data is affected by the missing sectors during imaging. So yes, imaging all sectors available and running a scan with such programs will result in partial structure and the rest with RAW. This is sort of Data Recovery 101. But with DE after imaging, you can also get reports on what data will be partial or completely bad due to missing sectors. And run RAW data scans for the rest.
Answer : When a Program Has Not Imaged a Drive And Does Not Have a MAP Of Read,Unread And Failed Read Sector How Can they Give this Report ,This is Silly To Think and Assume "I Did Not Say This Ever " . You Said Imaging All Sectors And Running a Scan With Result In Partial Sectors And Rest With RAW "If All Sectors Are Imaged Even The Most Useless Software Will Show Everything Properly " And If Some Sections Like MFT Etc Are Not Imaged By DE Properly Even DE Is Gonna Get Baffled .
My point was that there is nothing wrong with the recovery being done from start to finish with DE. That while DE is not as intuitive as some other tools, it cannot be said to be wrong to use DE from start to finish, even if you have to run RAW scans. I never said you said otherwise.

Question :But with DE after imaging, you can also get reports on what data will be partial or completely bad due to missing sectors. And run RAW data scans for the rest.
Answer : Well As DE Has a MAP of Imaged Sectors It Will/Can Shift All Problem Files To iProblem Folder For Sure .What did You Say Regarding RAW Here "It Makes No Sense " ,You Are Saying We Run RAW Data Scan For Rest "Which Rest All Problem Files And completely Bad Files Are already in iProblem Folder ,Running Raw On Those files will Not Generate Better Results At All .
If sectors in MFT or FAT or Catalog or whatever cannot be read and there are entries in structure not showing up, then you will have to run RAW scan to find the data. This is all I meant. DE cannot put files in Problem folder if it doesn't know the file exists. Which was your point exactly by telling the original poster to scan with other tools. I only brought that up to say that DE can do that, and since the original poster appears to have a head disabled, he will indeed run into this problem.

PS : My Main Point Was to Explain The Thread starter How i Work Or What i Feel
Please stop taking everything I say as a personal attack. The only real problem I had was that you are telling someone that there methods are wrong. If you can't see that, then no amount of discussion or argument is going to change it. So lets just move along and stay out of each others way. Please. And if you insist on continuing, then PM me.

[DataMedics]

This doesn't happen often, but I've actually got to agree with Amarbir here. If you're getting any type of errors like that, you really should work on getting a complete clone before you start doing the logical recovery.

DE is good, but not always the best for damaged FAT file system. I have seen some cases where another program like GetDataBack got better results at understanding the file/folder structure. Other times R-Studio does better. Each case is different, and sometimes multiple programs combined are needed to get a good recovery result. However, all that bouncing around trying to do logical recovery on a drive with hardware issues isn't a good idea. Best to clone every sector that can read using multiple imaging passes at increasing timeouts, then do the logical recovery with just the copy. You can tick the box "work with copy only" at that point so it's not trying to read the original any more.

[rdallasb]

What I have seen, now keep in mind we are a small company, is that when a drive is unstable it can be very productive to go after the data the client really wants or needs. Especially if its something like Quickbooks or an SQL data base or something. Now if the data is mostly just user share data or pictures then yeah, imaging as much as possible is for sure the way to go. I guess what I'm trying to say is that in the cases we've seen, Imaging by data map hasn't affected the overall recovery success rate, if anything, it has helped. It could very well be different for others. But I would say, if a drive is on its deathbed, no need in wasting time imaging sectors that are not occupied by current live data. Especially if the data can be mapped.

But either way, its all relative I suppose.

[rdallasb]

And thanks for weighing in. Even if you don't agree with me.

[kenedy]

Its very helpful post indeed.well done