Over spring break I lost a hard drive with 40 gigs worth of data and just this morning Windows decided it did not want to see most of my files on my other drive. I reboot run chkdsk and bam 91 gigs of data lost.
[WHO]ThemYou can call me DaveJoin Date: 2002-12-11Member: 10593Members, Constellation
<!--QuoteBegin-Zel+May 4 2005, 11:56 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Zel @ May 4 2005, 11:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> backing up 91 gigs is hard. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> it's not 91 gigs if you bother to do incremental backups regularly. There's no need to backup your porn collection 17 times... well, maybe there is. But definitely not for mp3's
Thats why I am deliberatly not attached to 90% of the stuff on my hard drive. All of my absolutly essential data is backed up on 2 hard drives and DVD.
You just have to ask yourself what do you actually need? Was it all that important the majority of the stuff you lost?
T'would sound like your partition tables might be getting screwed somewhere along the line. The only problem is, that XP's CHKDSK doesn't tell you what errors it has found, just the "CHKDSK has found, and fixed, one or more errors" message.
Backup what data is left on the drive, and wipe the drive clean. Format it NTFS, but do NOT do the "Quick Format". Full time formats tend to have more stable partition arrays.
For the future, this kind of post really belongs in Tech Support.
not if u have money <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
if i had money i'd do it, like greased lightning, it flies.
<!--QuoteBegin-Narfwak+May 4 2005, 07:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Narfwak @ May 4 2005, 07:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And people tell me that running in RAID 1 is stupid. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Quoted for ignorance.
RAID 1 has to be the best for people who want to store loads of data, as it can take a hard drive loss with minimal setup time required to get it back up and running.
Not as good as the RAID level that can automatically recorver, as soon as the hard drive that has failed is replaced. Can't remember what the level is, but it is the one with ECC-Checking...
I wish I had 91 gigs of space in the first place <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
RAID 1 can do automatic recovery - it depends more on the controller (yay for Adaptec SCSI RAID controllers <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> ). It's probably RAID 5 you're thinking of.
Twin 60Gb IDE software RAID 1 and a DVD burner... I hope it's enough
<!--QuoteBegin-Lt Patch+May 4 2005, 02:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Lt Patch @ May 4 2005, 02:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Narfwak+May 4 2005, 07:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Narfwak @ May 4 2005, 07:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And people tell me that running in RAID 1 is stupid. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Quoted for ignorance.
RAID 1 has to be the best for people who want to store loads of data, as it can take a hard drive loss with minimal setup time required to get it back up and running.
Not as good as the RAID level that can automatically recorver, as soon as the hard drive that has failed is replaced. Can't remember what the level is, but it is the one with ECC-Checking... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I use raid 5, its good to me
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I Just Lost 91 Gigs Of Data, but I have good news....I just saved money on my car insurance by switching to Geico.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would highly suggest having another computer that stores stuff you want. I have 2 computers away from where I live for backup.
NarfwakJoin Date: 2002-11-02Member: 5258Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Playtest Lead, Forum Moderators, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Supporter, Reinforced - Silver, Reinforced - Gold, Reinforced - Diamond, Reinforced - Shadow, Subnautica PT Lead, NS2 Community Developer
<!--QuoteBegin-Lt Patch+May 4 2005, 01:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Lt Patch @ May 4 2005, 01:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Narfwak+May 4 2005, 07:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Narfwak @ May 4 2005, 07:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And people tell me that running in RAID 1 is stupid. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Quoted for ignorance.
RAID 1 has to be the best for people who want to store loads of data, as it can take a hard drive loss with minimal setup time required to get it back up and running.
Not as good as the RAID level that can automatically recorver, as soon as the hard drive that has failed is replaced. Can't remember what the level is, but it is the one with ECC-Checking...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I can't tell if you're calling me ignorant or the people that hate on my HD setup ignorant. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Keep in mind that my RAID controller only supports RAID 0, 1, and 0+1, I only have two drives, and I want data redundancy. There's really only one way for me to set up my HDDs given the circumstances.
Comments
last week i had a harddrive have a mecahnical failure, resulting in 75 gigs of lost mp3.
14,500 songs, 1200 albums poofy gone.
if only windows had a problem i couldve recovered the data, but a mechanical failure (with clicks and pops during bootup) is simply irreversable.
it's not 91 gigs if you bother to do incremental backups regularly. There's no need to backup your porn collection 17 times... well, maybe there is. But definitely not for mp3's
I dont have much of my stuff backed up just out of lazyness....
You just have to ask yourself what do you actually need? Was it all that important the majority of the stuff you lost?
Backup what data is left on the drive, and wipe the drive clean. Format it NTFS, but do NOT do the "Quick Format". Full time formats tend to have more stable partition arrays.
For the future, this kind of post really belongs in Tech Support.
if i had money i'd do it, like greased lightning, it flies.
Quoted for ignorance.
RAID 1 has to be the best for people who want to store loads of data, as it can take a hard drive loss with minimal setup time required to get it back up and running.
Not as good as the RAID level that can automatically recorver, as soon as the hard drive that has failed is replaced. Can't remember what the level is, but it is the one with ECC-Checking...
Unlucky, I guess
Twin 60Gb IDE software RAID 1 and a DVD burner... I hope it's enough
Quoted for ignorance.
RAID 1 has to be the best for people who want to store loads of data, as it can take a hard drive loss with minimal setup time required to get it back up and running.
Not as good as the RAID level that can automatically recorver, as soon as the hard drive that has failed is replaced. Can't remember what the level is, but it is the one with ECC-Checking... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I use raid 5, its good to me
I would highly suggest having another computer that stores stuff you want. I have 2 computers away from where I live for backup.
Quoted for ignorance.
RAID 1 has to be the best for people who want to store loads of data, as it can take a hard drive loss with minimal setup time required to get it back up and running.
Not as good as the RAID level that can automatically recorver, as soon as the hard drive that has failed is replaced. Can't remember what the level is, but it is the one with ECC-Checking...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can't tell if you're calling me ignorant or the people that hate on my HD setup ignorant. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Keep in mind that my RAID controller only supports RAID 0, 1, and 0+1, I only have two drives, and I want data redundancy. There's really only one way for me to set up my HDDs given the circumstances.