|
From: | Felix Ehlermann |
Subject: | Re: [Bug-ddrescue] Recovery Advice - Slow + High Error Rate |
Date: | Sat, 19 Oct 2013 21:52:35 +0200 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 |
Hi Niklas,
here's my personal experience on the topics you asked about. Maybe someone else on the list can share theirs. > Q1 - can I speed this up some more" If only a certain area of the disk is damaged you can speed up recovery by doing the recovery of the undamaged areas first. The most simple approach would be to start at an arbitrary offset (e.g. 50G, 200G or 1T into the disk) and see if you get better speed there. This will of course not reduce the overall time, but maybe you can get a major part of the data recoverd quickly and then deal with the pending (slow) areas at a later time. Depending on what kind of defect the disk is suffering from (for example only one of the platters or heads could be damaged) you might be able to find a periodic pattern of "good" and "bad" areas. The log file will tell you where the readable and unreadable parts are in the already processed part of the disk. If you can predict the pattern you can adjust the logfile accordingly, so ddrescue will read these areas during one of the later phases -> you will get the good areas recovered faster this way. There was also an interesting discussion on this list a few weeks ago regarding the risk of further damaging a disk when spending too many read attempts on bad sectors - you might want to read up on that (Subject was "SMART, reallocation, and retries"). Regarding performance in general: I usually get transfer rates > 50 MByte/s on the undamaged parts of disks with only a few (<10k) bad sectors. The system I use is an older Core2Quad box at ~2.4 GHz, running a 2.6 kernel. The bad drive is connected directly via sata and the destination is usually an image file (either on local ext file system or on a NFS share). > Q2 - 10gigs in, I have 309mb of damage - is that a lot of damage? how badly damaged is this disk? This is quite a lot of damage from my experience. ~3% of your drive is unreadable - if you know the average size of your files on the disk you can do some math to estimate how many undamaged files you should be able to recover from it. > should I just accept its dead and not spend 2 months trying to recover it. I think that is something you need to decide yourself. However if the unreadable parts occur in short intervals and you got only large files stored on the disk you might and up with no undamaged files anyway. You could take a look at the already recovered data - however as you're writing to a disk it might be a bit more complicated. I usually would recover to an image. If that's not possible a disk which was zeroed prior to the recovery could be an option. If your target disk was not zeroed and did already contain data when you started the rescue you could still create a "clean" image file by using the fill mode of ddrescue. Kind Regards Felix On 18.10.2013 07:29, Niklas Swan wrote:
|
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |