| 1 |
On Monday 15 November 2010 18:07:27 Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
> Apparently, though unproven, at 17:10 on Monday 15 November 2010, J. |
| 3 |
> Roeleveld |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> did opine thusly: |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
<snipped> |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > How is this different from: |
| 11 |
> > 1) take a backup |
| 12 |
> > 2) check for bad sectors (badblocks) |
| 13 |
> > 3) restore backup |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > This is also less risky as the data is backed up somewhere safe |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> spinrite claims to make the head do other things than what the drive |
| 18 |
> firmware makes it do. Meaning that spinrite can extract data that the |
| 19 |
> drive itself in normal conditions cannot. This reasoning is sound. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
True, provided it actually knows HOW to override the firmware on all drives |
| 22 |
currently in use... |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> Remember that a drive is an analogue device, not a digital one (only the |
| 25 |
> *output data* is digital). |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Ofcourse, but is the head actually sensitive enough to be able to cooperate |
| 28 |
with this? Professional data recovery companies actually take out the platters |
| 29 |
and use their own drive-heads to get the data out. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> There is some doubt as to whether spinrite can even function in this wise |
| 32 |
> with modern drives though. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Yes, and that's exactly my point. Something that overrides the drives firmware |
| 35 |
can, in my view, easily brick the drive. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Joost |
Archives