HDDSuperClone‎ > ‎

Success Stories

Below are a few success stories from actual users of HDDSuperClone. You may notice that "success" is a relative term. None of these stories include the phrase "this software recovered 100% of my data". They do, however, demonstrate that HDDSuperClone did perform better than other software at recovering the most good data first. In most of these stories HDDSuperClone was only tried after other software failed to perform due to the drive being in such a bad condition.


#5

While this is supposed to be a "success story" section, this case is to show the reality that it does not always go as planned. According the log, it was an 8 head drive and one head was totally dead, but it was imaging the other 7 heads very well. And then it suddenly died very short of useful recovery.

"I have a WD Elements (P/N: WDBU6Y0020BBK-01) to clone.
As you know this kind of drive don't have a standard SATA interface. Due to this, I must clone through USB port...... and I know that it's not the best option.
Attached you will find the log.
The new version (latest) of HDDSuperClone exit during cloning and the drive begin to make "clicking" sound.
I have retried to turn on/off the drive but no success.
Do you have some ideas or it's the case to stop now the recovery?"

"I have already tried the reverse mode but no success and also the skip-threshold with some values. The drive begin to make clicking noise and itsn't recognized by the system. I have recovered about 15% of the drive (also using reverse mode) and after... nothing to do. In the drive there are big file size so I think that the skip ahead isn't useful to recover this kind of files.

Now I bring the drive to a local data recovery company that have ACE Lab and similar tools. "



#4

Here is a case where
HDDSuperClone recovered as much data as it could before the drive died. From looking at the log, the drive had two heads and one was weak but still had good read areas. The user tweaked the skip threshold to attempt the best result, as there were slow read areas in the bad head. The drive died about 94% into phase 1, with only 68.7% recovered. But as stated below, a large amount of data was able to be recovered.

"As you can see I have used the parameter --skip-treshold 1000. I have tweaked the value between 500 and 1800 and I noticed that 1000 was a good compromise. I have also used the --reverse parameter but no relevant difference.
Unfortunately I have stopped the recovery because the drive started to make a not good clicking noise.
In short words I have recovered a huge amount of data. HDDSuperClone was AGAIN the winner!"


#3

Another example of HDDSuperClone outperforming other software, including ddrescue.

"First and foremost, thank you so much for developing this program. Because of this program, I got to about 83% and was able to recover a good portion of the photos from my wifes hdd. Even tried several programs (Ease us, Acronis, easy recovery, ddrescue) with no success. DDrescue did provide some hope, however the speeds eventually dropped too low that it would take years to complete on top of the frequent I/O errors that require me to power cycle the computer. 56% was the furthest I got on a 500 GB hdd. But most of the data was corrupted. 

Just when I was about to give up, I was fortunate to come across your thread( https://www.data-medics.com/forum/hddsuperclone-t1262-40.html ) about using your new tool HDD superclone. 
To my delight, I managed to get about 83% and was able to recover decent amount of data. Frequent I/O errors and power cycling during the span of 2-3 weeks was worth the trouble."

The user probably would not have even sent me this information, except that for some reason the progress log ended up with adjacent lines that had the same status, which caused an error when trying to continue the recovery. This possibly happened due to having to power cycle the drive and restart the recovery, and I am further looking into how to prevent or better deal with this issue. But I emailed the user back stating to use the --repair-log option and it will fix the log and the recovery can be continued.


#2

In this example the user had started the recovery with ddrescue and then imported it to HDDSuperClone. The full story can be found at the following link:
http://forum.hddguru.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=33906

"Initially I ran DMDE against the drive a few times (for very limited periods) before attempting to image it with DDRescue. Each time the start of the DMDE scans went okay before hitting what felt like damaged areas of the disk. It definitely "feels" like the beginning of the disk is less damaged so your first theory may be correct.

Regarding HDDSuperclone.
Really impressed with the speed so far although skip size is currently 15728, not sure if I should've lowered the max skip size?
To put things in perspective:

DDRescue Pass 2:
17/08/2016 9am ish: Rescued: 341147 iPos: 999653 -34.1147%
22/08/2016 9am ish: Rescued: 341685 iPos: 987437 -34.1685%
23/08/2016 9am ish: Rescued: 341780 iPos: 984341 -34.1780%

HDDSuperclone Phase 2:
Starting from where DDRescue left off and running for 1 day 1 hour:
Position: 1594464033 (around 760.3Gb?)
Finished: 768967400 (3381 areas 39.364010%) <-These numbers were changing as I typed so the maths may not work out perfectly =).

Although I can't be sure how much disk damage played a part (The end of the disk seems far worse than the rest of it going by scan speed) SuperClone definitely seems much better able to handle this damaged disk."


So in 6 days of running ddrescue it recovered 0.0633%. After just a little over 1 day of running HDDSuperClone (the ddrescue log was imported and the rescue picked up right where ddrescue left off), it recovered a little over 5%. Unfortunately this drive will likely only achieve about a 50% total recovery without professional recovery, but the point of this is that HDDSuperClone was very much noticeably faster than ddrescue at getting data from a problematic drive.


#1

I finally have a report where HDDSuperClone free version very much outperformed ddrescue. Here are actual quotes from the user:

“Now I'm trying to clone an hard drive with more than 2000 bad sectors. Your software (at this time) have recovered the first partion. About 20GB. For example Ddrescue and Diskpatch failed to clone. In other words: too much time, too slow progress in recovery, unclear situation of the progress. I think that you are on a right way to make probably the best cloning software (for read problematic drive) of every time!!!”

 “At the moment, I repeat, that your software has surpassed ALL other software... included the legendary ddrescue.”

“HDDSuperClone not only perform better than other free software cloning tools..... in this case perform better than other non-free software cloning tools. I have tested this drive with other commercial and advanced cloning softwares.”

The user also sent me a screenshot of the recovery in process. Just from the information provided from the running HDDSuperClone recovery it was easy to deduce that the drive likely had four heads and one head was very bad. After being sent the progress log file and drive model (Toshiba mk6465gsx) I was able to conclude that the initial assessment was correct. The drive has one head that is not returning any data at all. On top of that there are a couple spots towards the beginning of the drive that also have an issue with reads from at least two other heads.

So this drive is in bad shape, but HDDSuperClone was able to get 73.9% of the data, possibly in less than two days. I don’t know the exact time that it completed phase 2 as the screenshot shows that it is partially into phase 3 with almost 46 hours of run time, and the screenshot also showed that the log previously existed so it was not the first run (I have done some math using data from the screenshot and figure it is possible that it could have finished phase2 in about 18 hours). I think that there could be the possibility to recover another 1% that is in the troubled spot in the normally good heads, but it would require some calculations and the manual creation of a domain file (break out the hexadecimal calculator and some basic algebra!). Phase 3 may actually recover some of this data when it gets there, but the recovery might as well be stopped after that as further phases will be of no use (without the creation of a custom domain file) and would take days/months/years to complete with little to no results to show for it. Of course a very expensive hardware imager could more easily process that last 1% in the good heads as it would have the capability to map the heads directly. But this drive would almost certainly require a physical head swap for the final 25%, no matter what cloning tool was used.

But the main point of this is that the free version HDDSuperClone, a software only tool, just did an amazing job of getting the most good data first from a very bad drive, and in a reasonable amount of time with the default settings. The self learning head skipping algorithm performed exceptionally well, and even dealt with the additional bad spots that were present in the normally good heads without going totally out of control, and then settled right back in after those spots were passed.

On top of that, the initial progress log file that was sent to me was abruptly cut off in the middle of a line and was incomplete, which triggered an error when trying to open it with HDDViewer. I later found out that this was likely caused by a power loss:

“When the PC with Lubuntu live and your software was running (overnight), there was a blackout and the UPS run out the power charge.”

Then the user sent me the backup log file that is created by default to address situations exactly like this. It was fully intact and indeed showed that the original file was missing several lines at the end. I have seen more than one report of ddrescue users complaining that the log file was corrupt or missing when something like this happened.

What are the odds that someone could demonstrate that not only did HDDSuperClone do an amazing job of cloning a very bad drive as best that could be expected from a free software only tool, but also show the importance of the backup log file when dealing with something such as an unexpected power failure?!




After the cloning was complete (stopped) with as much data as could be recovered (no more than 75% due to the bad head), the user had this to say:
"I have recovered many data from the raw drive image obtained by HDDSuperClone. I've used R-Studio (usually I use R-Studio, Diskinternals and UFS Explorer) to extract the data. It was reconstructed also the filesystem structure: proper file names and directories. Various files were corrupted but a very huge amount of files were OK. I've used also the "extra found files" function of R-Studio and further good files were recovered. Of course also deleted files were recovered, but useless for the purpose of this recovery.
I'M VERY SATISFIED! Your FREE VERSION outperformed ALL cloning software that I know (I think that I know all cloning software)."




Comments