Slashdot Mirror
Recovering Secret HD Space
An anonymous reader writes "Just browsing hardocp.com and noticed a link to this article.
'The Inquirer has posted a method of getting massive amounts of hard drive space from your current drive. Supposedly by following the steps outlined, they have gotten 150GB from an 80GB EIDE drive, 510GB from a 200GB SATA drive and so on.' Could this be true? I'm not about to try with my hard drive." Needless to say, this might be a time to avoid the bleeding edge. (See Jeff Garzik's warning in the letters page linked from the Register article.)
Shenanigans.
No way in heck can you increase the amount of storage a HDD has so drastically. I mean, the physical disks can only hold so much, and no matter what you do, they arent going to magically double or triple.
These are physical disks, they have a set number of sectors. One size and one size only.
Unless you get into the whole mega vs. mibi byte but thats a whole nother can of worms!
http://www.freepokerchipset.info
I have to agree with all of the naysayers on this. As much as I'd love to double my hard disk space for free, there's no such thing as a free lunch. This looks like a really terrific way to hose all of the data on your hard drive. You're really better off just shopping around for a reasonably priced 100gb hard drive or something instead.
iRooster, the Mac OS X a
In other news, witnesses reported UFO sightings all over the country...
My data is way more important than squeezing a bit extra out of an 80 dollar drive. Interesting idea and all that, but this isn't like in the old days of the "punch a new hole to make your 5-1/4 inch floppy double sided", where if you screw up, you lose only a disk worth of data - with this, if you screw up, you lose a _disk worth_ of data.
If I need more space, I'll buy a bigger drive, they keep getting cheaper and faster and bigger all the time anyway.
Just to be a bastard, I gotta point out that this could probably be considered a Ghost bug. While there might not be anything Symantec could *do* to help someone that's mucked up their drive, I could reasonably see them complaining to Symantec about it.
May we never see th
Yes, that post sums it up pretty much, other than that 'probably' should be replaced with 'absolutely'.
/dev/hda.
Basically this idiot has found an incredibly cumbersome way to screw up his partition table. (see below for more details)
Then of course this gets posted and linked to all over the planet for everyone to try for themselves. Who are these fucking idiots that post this kinda stuff? They should get 'gullible' tatood on their forehead.
Hint: nowhere in the article is it said that they actually tried to use all the space and verify all data remained intact. Wouldn't that be the first thing you'd do before posting something like this online?
Anyways, I've written several IDE drivers (and worked on the IDE core for BIOSs) and I can tell you that there is NO way you can increase the size of a 200GB drive to 510GB, especially not with the tools that are described (Ghost).
Look at the 80GB example: they got 150GB? That's interesting, because that would mean that the drive all of a sudden became a 48-bit LBA drive. Older drives are limited to 137.4GB in size and to get 150GB capacity you need 48-bit LBA. I don't think Ghost is going to reflash the firmware of the drive to add support for that (yes, that's meant to sound sarcastic).
Ghost works at the partition level. A drive reports it's size in sectors. This is basically a lower (or closer to the hardware) level.
All they do is move partitions around. But the drive will keep reporting the same number of sectors. Where do the extra sectors come from?
Why don't these people run an IDE identify program on those harddrives. They'll see that the drive still reports the original number of sectors. Exactly the same amount of sectors you can get to through
It's true that some OSs don't create the most ideal partitions so you lose _some_ sectors but nothing in the order of magnitude described though.
Initially I thought maybe they where using the extra error-detection/recovery bytes that each sector has (which would be a very stupid idea), but that would never give you that much increase.
Or that they were removing some factory/OEM predefined partition, which is basically the only relatively safe thing you can do to reclaim some disk space. Again, not the same order of magnitude, plus you'd never go over the size that the disk is sold as.
No sane company is going to sell a 150 GB drive as an 80 GB because they pay as much to manufacture platters and heads no matter how they're used. The cost of the unused parts would come right out of their profits.
You'd be correct if there was just one HDD maker in the marketplace, but that isn't so.
First off, let me say that I think this whole isue is bunk. But let's pretend for a moment.
Company A and Company B are both in the business of making and selling HDDs. Company A makes only 200 GB HDDs which cost them about $100 each to manufacture and they then sell them for $200. Company B makes a 200GB HDD which costs them $100 to make and they then sell it for $200. Company B also does this, they modify the firmware of the drive to that only 150 GB are usable. They sell these "150 GB" HDDs for $150.
Company A gets the business of people who are willing to shell out $200 for a 200 GB HDD. Company A does not get the business who have a budget of less than $200 for their HDD purchase.
Company B get the business of people who are willing to shell out $200 for 200 GB HDD and the business of people who have a smaller budget.
By crippling the drive they protect the value of their "high end" product while at the same time making some money on the "mid range" as well
Company A's profits can be calculated like this profit = (X1xP1) whereas X=The number of units sold and P=The profit margin on the unit. #=The model of the HDD
Company B's profits can be calculated like this profit = (X1xP1)+(X2xP2).
This same business principle is a part of the reason why some 2.4 Ghz processors will run at 3 Ghz when overclocked.
I have no doubt that there could be a fair bit of space on a drive that is unavailable to the user, but double or triple capacity? Of course not!
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
What probably happens here is: ghost creates a special file, or at least writes to an empty part of your filesystem. Then, it writes a complete mini-os to this 8 MB region.
It backs up the original MBR (which is the bootsector, it also hold the partition table) and writes its own MBR. This MBR has a partition table which includes an 8 MB partion. The boundaries of the partition are the boundaries of the special file.
Since this MBR isn't meant to be used in any normal operation environment, it's not quite legal. Some (not all, the MBR can only hold 4) of the original partitions still show up in the new MBR. Therefore, the 8 MB partition lies inside a much larger partition.
This probably confuses fdisk, which lets you create a partition directly after the 8 MB partition, but inside your original partition.
When you subsequently delete the 8 MB partition, fdisk is probably confused again. The end of the original partition is probably obscured by the new, overlapping partition. So it lets you create yet another partition, from the beginning of the disk to the start of the overlapping partition.
The end result is: one large partition holding two small partitions inside it. This will exactly double your diskspace. Just don't try to use it :-)
This is your sig. There are thousands more, but this one is yours.
Testing only one processor for a whole batch won't make sense and be dangerous. What would be if you happen to test the one processor of a dozen which can run with 3.0 GHz, while the others only can do 2.4 GHz? You would sell a bunch of overrated processors. Therefore EACH processor is tested.
Sorry, I gotta start a flame :)
;). Instead they "hook" them using the stuff now so it's harder to change later.
Maybe I should have been a bit clearer by stating
"Not always is their goal to make a profit *THIS MINUTE*, but rather longer term make more by locking up market share and inflating prices once you've got the market share"
The world is full of examples of companies eschewing short-term profits in favor of long-view profits from market share:
- Gilette made it famous "Give away the razor, make it up on the blades"
- Microsoft and a ton of other companies sell their "academic" versions of software to college kids for pennies on the dollar compared to the stuff in the computer shop down the road. If they didn't the little bastards would probably use something like that pinko OpenOffice and Linux.
-Let people pirate your graphics software easily so they get used to screwing around with it *Cough*Photoshop*Cough*. When it comes time to get a job doing graphics, and the company asks what software to buy you for your workstation, well, it's a one-horse race, isn't it?
-Microsoft execs including Steve Ballmer himself, have said repeatedly that if people in asia were to pirate software, Microsoft would prefer that it was their software that was being pirated.
Short term loss, long term gain because of.. market share.