HDDSuperClone

[maximus]

Okay, I am looking through the code, and maybe found another possibility for a wrong/changed size error. But as far as I can tell it would still be triggered by a read error of some sort. Hope somehow it is that possible issue, and your recovery is good.

EDIT:
After further review, the issue may happen without being triggered by a read error. I do know I changed some code this issue when getting the initial device size, but it looks like the code for checking it later on does not have the updated code. I will try to update the code and release an updated version as soon as I can.

 

[nissimezra]

That output shows it is not because of the sector size. It it recognized as having 512 byte logical and physical sector size to the OS. So that would not be the cause of hddsuperclone reporting the size changed. With that being the case, it goes back to questioning the data recovered. Hopefully it is all good...

Well we will have to wait and. It'll few more days to finish. Once it'll finish Ill post here the result and try again to clone it.
Happy new year man

 

[maximus]

HDDSuperClone version 2.1.6 released.

HDDSuperClone Changelog

version 2.1.6 20190102
* Now shows message for unsupported sector size in the free version
* Fixed a bug where SCSI passthrough could report drive sized changed

 

[maximus]

[post]12874[/post]Well we will have to wait and. It'll few more days to finish. Once it'll finish Ill post here the result and try again to clone it.
Happy new year man

I just released version 2.1.6. With this version, it will give a message for an unsupported sector size, if that is somehow the case. And the other potential issue where it could possibly falsely report a wrong size should also be resolved. I was going over the code, and there is one case where it could have happened without any normal read error. Please let me know if this resolves the issue or not.

 

[maximus]

[post]12839[/post]It's the second one . I tried different computers and the same issue. I read somewhere on the net that someone has success cloning via USB with ddrescue so I gave it a try.
So far 1.7 tb pass with zero skips and errors
It should be finished soon I'll let you know if it worked
https://imgur.com/a/EJxXhGd

[post]12868[/post]
Thanks for your answer
Here it is
didn't try to clone it
https://imgur.com/a/3Pu3A7C

So I didn’t really look that close at your results until now. For the first one using DDRescue-GUI, I can see that it does not list data such as non-trimmed and non-scraped. So the bad sector count of 0 is misleading, there almost certainly have been read errors.

For the second one using ddrescue 1.23, I can see from the current progress that there are over 22,000 read errors amounting to almost 3GB (non-trimmed: 2911 MB). So this drive does have some serious issues, likely a weak/damaged head.

So the drive does have errors, which could have induced the potential wrong size issue that I have hopefully fixed in version 2.1.6. I was about going nuts trying to figure out how it could have happened without read errors (even with the one possibility), and now I know there are most certainly read errors. I guess I need to pay closer attention to the details

 

[Jared]

So I guess this confirms the suspicions that the GUI version of ddrescue is not as good as the command line version. Glad I never switched to the GUI one.

 

[maximus]

[post]12895[/post] So I guess this confirms the suspicions that the GUI version of ddrescue is not as good as the command line version. Glad I never switched to the GUI one.

Well, yes and no. Upon even further inspection, the ddresuce 1.23 terminal output is actually from the GUI program. So it can show the terminal output, along with the other output. It is simply a front end to make ddrescue easy to use for the novice. It would obviously be more helpful to have a better output that made it more understandable. I have never used it, so I don't know what it can and can't display.

To be fair, if you don't know how to understand the hddsuperclone screen, one may not notice the non-trimmed or non-scrapped values as being read errors if you don't know what you are looking for. But that is why I color coded them.

 

[nissimezra]

[post]12839[/post]It's the second one . I tried different computers and the same issue. I read somewhere on the net that someone has success cloning via USB with ddrescue so I gave it a try.
So far 1.7 tb pass with zero skips and errors
It should be finished soon I'll let you know if it worked
https://imgur.com/a/EJxXhGd

[post]12868[/post]
Thanks for your answer
Here it is
didn't try to clone it
https://imgur.com/a/3Pu3A7C

So I didn’t really look that close at your results until now. For the first one using DDRescue-GUI, I can see that it does not list data such as non-trimmed and non-scraped. So the bad sector count of 0 is misleading, there almost certainly have been read errors.

For the second one using ddrescue 1.23, I can see from the current progress that there are over 22,000 read errors amounting to almost 3GB (non-trimmed: 2911 MB). So this drive does have some serious issues, likely a weak/damaged head.

So the drive does have errors, which could have induced the potential wrong size issue that I have hopefully fixed in version 2.1.6. I was about going nuts trying to figure out how it could have happened without read errors (even with the one possibility), and now I know there are most certainly read errors. I guess I need to pay closer attention to the details

Of course it has.
https://imgur.com/a/JdoeuLy
I will check with other that I have to see if the problem is with the drive or with hddsuperclone. The problem is that all of them are bad so it'll be hard to determine the cause.

 

[nissimezra]

So I guess this confirms the suspicions that the GUI version of ddrescue is not as good as the command line version. Glad I never switched to the GUI one.

You have pro tools why using cheap stuff?
Do not underestimate the GUI version it never let down, always did great job.
Great for dummies like me

https://imgur.com/a/JdoeuLy

 

[Jared]

So I guess this confirms the suspicions that the GUI version of ddrescue is not as good as the command line version. Glad I never switched to the GUI one.

You have pro tools why using cheap stuff?
Do not underestimate the GUI version it never let down, always did great job.
Great for dummies like me

https://imgur.com/a/JdoeuLy

For odd devices like SCSI drives that aren't worth investing in pro tools. That's when I still might use ddrescue.

Sent from my SM-G935U using Tapatalk