Author Topic: Help on disk-read error. (Read 7257 times)

leet_muffin · « **on:** July 23, 2006, 05:56:30 pm »

My main box (the one with all my AP English homework on it.) just went out. I left with it running fine, no problems. I just had about a 2-3 second power outage (due to lightning?). After the outage, I went to look at the computer. It said, and I quote "Disk read error. ctrl+alt+del to restart." I restarted, same thing. Well first it has the "Compaq" little intro thing. I really need some help here. Is the hard drive screwed? I need it before Tuesday. Is it a lost hope? I could start typing this English stuff up again...

Sidoh · « **Reply #1 on:** July 23, 2006, 06:32:45 pm »

That sounds to me like the disk is fried, but you can try puting it in another computer. If it shows up, you can probably recover the files. If it doesn't even detect the disk, then you're probably SOL unless you want to pay lots and lots of money to ship it to a center to have files recovered. If it's detected but corrupted, there's some pretty cheap software you can buy/pirate to recover files.

leet_muffin · « **Reply #2 on:** July 23, 2006, 07:08:18 pm »

Quote from: Sidoh on July 23, 2006, 06:32:45 pm

That sounds to me like the disk is fried, but you can try puting it in another computer. If it shows up, you can probably recover the files. If it doesn't even detect the disk, then you're probably SOL unless you want to pay lots and lots of money to ship it to a center to have files recovered. If it's detected but corrupted, there's some pretty cheap software you can buy/pirate to recover files.

Well, I need it soon. I don't have anything else to hook it up to. I removed the drive - took off the 41 pin and everything. =( New rule: I hate lightning storms + SDG&E

Newby · « **Reply #3 on:** July 23, 2006, 11:43:40 pm »

Say it with me: uninterruptable power supply.

leet_muffin · « **Reply #4 on:** July 23, 2006, 11:47:19 pm »

I have.... the battery side doesn't work, so basically, I might as well not have it.

Chavo · « **Reply #5 on:** July 24, 2006, 12:32:00 pm »

Quote from: Newby on July 23, 2006, 11:43:40 pm

Say it with me: uninterruptable power supply.

meh, UPS's are either a) expensive or b) wear out in 3 months

Newby · « **Reply #6 on:** July 24, 2006, 01:23:09 pm »

Quote from: unTactical on July 24, 2006, 12:32:00 pm

Quote from: Newby on July 23, 2006, 11:43:40 pm
Say it with me: uninterruptable power supply.
meh, UPS's are either a) expensive or b) wear out in 3 months

a.) Not when they're on sale!

b.) Warranty.

Ergot · « **Reply #7 on:** July 24, 2006, 01:37:46 pm »

http://images10.newegg.com/UploadFilesForNewegg/sweepstakes26/Land26.htm

Chavo · « **Reply #8 on:** July 24, 2006, 03:46:36 pm »

Quote from: Newby on July 24, 2006, 01:23:09 pm

Quote from: unTactical on July 24, 2006, 12:32:00 pm
Quote from: Newby on July 23, 2006, 11:43:40 pm
Say it with me: uninterruptable power supply.
meh, UPS's are either a) expensive or b) wear out in 3 months
a.) Not when they're on sale!

b.) Warranty.

I haven't ever seen a high quality UPS (I consider high quality the industrial grade ones we have on some of the more important servers at KSU). cheaper than ~$500.

The cheap ones (cheapest I've seen is ~$30 from CompUSA) don't have guarantees on how they last. When the cell dies, it dies. They only replace them if they leak battery acid or fail without warning.

Newby · « **Reply #9 on:** July 24, 2006, 04:11:35 pm »

I got a really really good one for $200, on sale from $300. Store sale + product sale = $$ saved!

Chavo · « **Reply #10 on:** July 24, 2006, 04:23:06 pm »

Thats still a lot of money to spend :/

Sidoh · « **Reply #11 on:** July 24, 2006, 07:36:34 pm »

Yeah, I think I'd rather get a 3 more SATA drives for RAID 5.

Newby · « **Reply #12 on:** July 24, 2006, 07:39:26 pm »

Quote from: Sidoh on July 24, 2006, 07:36:34 pm

Yeah, I think I'd rather get a 3 more SATA drives for RAID 5.

And then when the power goes out, lose any unsaved data?!?!

I don't like RAID anyway. I have enough hard-drive space as it is.

leet_muffin · « **Reply #13 on:** July 24, 2006, 07:44:17 pm »

Well, I used the drivescrubber (<3 newby) and it worked fine. So I'm hoping I'll regain use of my hard drive, although, I did lose all my stuffs.

Sidoh · « **Reply #14 on:** July 24, 2006, 08:18:02 pm »

Quote from: Newby on July 24, 2006, 07:39:26 pm

And then when the power goes out, lose any unsaved data?!?!

Uhh... no. Every single program I use that handles sensitive data saves in at least one-minute intervals.

Quote from: Newby on July 24, 2006, 07:39:26 pm

I don't like RAID anyway. I have enough hard-drive space as it is.

I'm unaware of any RAID configuration that has the main intention of increasing capacity. RAID is used for write speed, drive integrity or a combination of the two.

In fact, with RAID 5 (At least 4 drives required), you entirely lose the functionality of one of the drives in the array for bit parity. The advantage is: if you lose one drive in the array, you lose none of your data. When it is replaced, the array rebuilds itself. On top of that, RAID 5 features data striping, so writing data is a lot faster. There are tons of RAID configurations, but 5 is probably the most practical/reliable for a workstation situation.

Joe · « **Reply #15 on:** July 24, 2006, 10:28:35 pm »

Is RAID handled at the system or OS level?

Newby · « **Reply #16 on:** July 24, 2006, 11:04:21 pm »

I'd guess system, since my motherboard has ports for RAID.

Chavo · « **Reply #17 on:** July 25, 2006, 09:50:07 am »

Quote from: Sidoh on July 24, 2006, 08:18:02 pm

Uhh... no. Every single program I use that handles sensitive data saves in at least one-minute intervals.

I think he meant data loss from a hard drive getting fried.

Quote from: Sidoh on July 24, 2006, 08:18:02 pm

I'm unaware of any RAID configuration that has the main intention of increasing capacity. RAID is used for write speed, drive integrity or a combination of the two.

In fact, with RAID 5 (At least 4 drives required), you entirely lose the functionality of one of the drives in the array for bit parity. The advantage is: if you lose one drive in the array, you lose none of your data. When it is replaced, the array rebuilds itself. On top of that, RAID 5 features data striping, so writing data is a lot faster. There are tons of RAID configurations, but 5 is probably the most practical/reliable for a workstation situation.

RAID is all fine and good (although a bitch to setup on XP), but if you don't need the write performance or 100% uptime on the data it serves, I think a simple backup is much better bang for the buck (ie on most workstations). My 80gb external hard drive (cost me ~$100 2 years ago) holds backups for all my computers. Ghost even schedules the backups such that I have a fresh backup every week with incrementals every day.

@Joe, there are actually two types of RAID. Hardware controlled and Software controlled. If you want to find out more, there are plenty of articles on the differences.

Sidoh · « **Reply #18 on:** July 25, 2006, 11:09:28 am »

Quote from: unTactical on July 25, 2006, 09:50:07 am

I think he meant data loss from a hard drive getting fried.

You're thinking of RAID 0. With RAID 5, one drive going bad doesn't sacrifice the existance of your data. You put another drive in and it rebuilds itself on the fly.

Quote from: unTactical on July 25, 2006, 09:50:07 am

RAID is all fine and good (although a bitch to setup on XP), but if you don't need the write performance or 100% uptime on the data it serves, I think a simple backup is much better bang for the buck (ie on most workstations). My 80gb external hard drive (cost me ~$100 2 years ago) holds backups for all my computers. Ghost even schedules the backups such that I have a fresh backup every week with incrementals every day.

RAID is easy as hell to set up in windows XP, especially if your RAID controller doesn't suck. I've done it quite a few times. If I wanted to back up my entire hard drive, I could just buy another SATA 120 GB and set up a RAID 1 configuration, but I don't want to do that. Everything I have is already backed up to my server. If I wanted to give myseslf drive integrety, I'd set up RAID 5.

Chavo · « **Reply #19 on:** July 25, 2006, 05:31:45 pm »

Quote from: Sidoh on July 25, 2006, 11:09:28 am

You're thinking of RAID 0. With RAID 5, one drive going bad doesn't sacrifice the existance of your data. You put another drive in and it rebuilds itself on the fly.

I'm very familiar with RAID, a lightning strike fries every hard drive, not just 1

I was not referring to a single disk failure.

Quote from: Sidoh on July 25, 2006, 11:09:28 am

RAID is easy as hell to set up in windows XP, especially if your RAID controller doesn't suck. I've done it quite a few times. If I wanted to back up my entire hard drive, I could just buy another SATA 120 GB and set up a RAID 1 configuration, but I don't want to do that. Everything I have is already backed up to my server. If I wanted to give myseslf drive integrety, I'd set up RAID 5.

You are referring to a Hardware RAID controller. Try it again without one

Sidoh · « **Reply #20 on:** July 25, 2006, 06:53:56 pm »

Quote from: unTactical on July 25, 2006, 05:31:45 pm

I'm very familiar with RAID, a lightning strike fries every hard drive, not just 1 I was not referring to a single disk failure.

Not when you have a decent surge protector.

Quote from: unTactical on July 25, 2006, 05:31:45 pm

You are referring to a Hardware RAID controller. Try it again without one

Why? My motherboard has an onboard SATA raid controller. My motherboard cost $120 two years ago.

Chavo · « **Reply #21 on:** July 25, 2006, 09:16:37 pm »

Quote from: Sidoh on July 25, 2006, 06:53:56 pm

Why? My motherboard has an onboard SATA raid controller. My motherboard cost $120 two years ago.

My point is that RAID is not "easy as hell" to setup on XP without a Hardware RAID controller. The last machine I set it up on using Windows XP did not have one.

Sidoh · « **Reply #22 on:** July 26, 2006, 06:52:28 pm »

Quote from: unTactical on July 25, 2006, 09:16:37 pm

My point is that RAID is not "easy as hell" to setup on XP without a Hardware RAID controller. The last machine I set it up on using Windows XP did not have one.

And my point is that software RAID controlers suck and shouldn't be used.

Chavo · « **Reply #23 on:** July 26, 2006, 07:13:54 pm »

Then say its easy as hell to setup RAID with a hardware controller, not that its easy to setup in Windows XP

Sidoh · « **Reply #24 on:** July 26, 2006, 07:20:30 pm »

Quote from: unTactical on July 26, 2006, 07:13:54 pm

Then say its easy as hell to setup RAID with a hardware controller, not that its easy to setup in Windows XP

No thanks.

News:

Author Topic: Help on disk-read error. (Read 7257 times)