| Author | Message | ||
     Terry Greenwood Username: greenwood Registered: 3-2006 |
According to the web site info, Replica has an 'Option to clone only selected sectors, forwards or backwards.' The menu does not offer this option. Does it have to be enabled with a command line switch ? | ||
| Stefan Fleischmann Username: admin Registered: 1-2001 |
Yes, as described in the chapter "Copying Selected Sectors" in the accompanying instructions. | ||
| Jimmy Weg Username: jw Registered: 7-2006 |
I had a bad 80GB drive, which, of all my other tools, only XWR could image! It had roughly 156,000,000 sectors. Replica reported that it had an HPA: reported size 7,077,996 (3.4GB) sectors, real size 260,013,952 sectors, real size 124.0GB. My guess is that some corruption led to reporting an HPA. At the imaging point, XWR reported the drive as 74.5GB, which was correct. The first of more than 4,000 bed sectors was 6,310,279, which, perhaps coincidentally, was close to the size (3.4GB) reported in the HPA check. If I had started from the "end" I'd have to copy the sectors to a disk instead of an image file. Would the sectors, say 156,000,000-6,500,000, be copied in that reverse order beginning at Sector 0 of the source drive? Next, let's say I copied the source sectors from 0-6,300,000. (From a partial image, I could see a directory structure.) I know that there would be errors ater doing this, but I could concatenate the two groups: 0-6,300,000 and 6,500,000-156,000,000. At least I would end up with block of sectors. The reverse copying and the perhaps reultant need to "un-reverse" them has me a bit confused. Thanks. | ||
| Stefan Fleischmann Username: admin Registered: 1-2001 |
> Would the sectors, say 156,000,000-6,500,000, be copied > in that reverse order beginning at Sector 0 of the source > drive? No. 156,000,000 on src would be copied to 156,000,000 on dest 155,999,999 on src would be copied to 155,999,999 on dest 155,999,998 on src would be copied to 155,999,998 on dest ... No need to "unreverse". | ||
| Jimmy Weg Username: jw Registered: 7-2006 |
Thanks, Stefan. One more question. The hash reported by XWR of the source differs from my image, so I must not understand the 0x00 replacement. The replacement obviously is in the image file, but I thought that the source would be hashed as though its bad sectors were 0x00s. Or are the original sectors skipped in the hashing? | ||
| Stefan Fleischmann Username: admin Registered: 1-2001 |
They are not skipped. When imaging a disk with bad sectors, zero-value bytes (0x00) are hashed and written to the image file as a substitute for bad sectors. | ||
| Jimmy Weg Username: jw Registered: 7-2006 |
That's what I thought, and since that's the case, a hash of the image file should match the hash in the log file, so something is amiss. I don't understand how anything could have been changed, but things happen. Thanks very much! |