1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Disk not being recognised in unit or in Windows

Discussion in 'PVR-9150 Freeview Recorder' started by Ed Ludlow, Mar 19, 2014.

  1. Ed Ludlow

    Ed Ludlow Member

    Why is it saying "writes to Humax disk are disabled"? Is that going to prevent it actually writing the new partition table?
     
  2. xyz321

    xyz321 Well-Known Member

    humaxcheck -p does recreate the MBR. It does this by looking at the beginning of the first partition and reading its header information. This provides (amongst other things) information about the start and length of the partition. Once it has these parameters it then knows where to look for similar information from the next partition etc. If it finds all three partitions it can then remake the MBR. In this case it seems that (at least) the beginning of the first partition has been overwritten.

    I seem to vaguely remember someone having successfully recovered their MBR after a Windows initialisation but I can't remember what machine was or what version of Windows was used to break it.;)
     
  3. xyz321

    xyz321 Well-Known Member

    Because you didn't supply the '-w' option. However, it will still fail if it can't find three partitions.
     
  4. Ed Ludlow

    Ed Ludlow Member

    Ah that makes sense - with the -w option I get "partition table not modified, not enough partitions".
     
  5. MartinLiddle

    MartinLiddle Super Moderator Staff Member

    I definitely know of people who have successfully done this on a 9200T but I don't know what version of Windows was used to overwrite it originally.
     
  6. Ed Ludlow

    Ed Ludlow Member

    I'll do some digging on this. Do also have access to Unix and OSX, so hopefully I can find a solution...
     
  7. xyz321

    xyz321 Well-Known Member

    You could try looking at offset 8192 with a hex editor. This should correspond to the beginning of the first partition.
     
  8. Black Hole

    Black Hole Usain the Whippet

    I agree with AF - that is a lousy analogy for a partition table, much better as an analogy for a FAT. The partition table only specifies what part of the disk each partition occupies (and by implication the location of each FAT) - so corrupting it is like throwing away the key to the room that contains the library index, not actually disordering the library.
     
  9. Mike0001

    Mike0001 Well-Known Member


    The library is already disordered. Without the partition table all you have is a jumble of sectors on a HDD.

    I purposely avoided mentioning the FAT because partitions don't necessarily have a FAT. NTFS's MFT springs to mind. So, your "location of each FAT" makes no sense whatsoever unless this particular machine uses FATs. In particular, the partition table does not imply the location of any FATs on a drive that might have no FAT, eg, an NTFS drive.

    Anyway, it is irrelevant because Ed knew about this already. I assume you are arguing for the sake of it, as usual?:disagree:
     
  10. MartinLiddle

    MartinLiddle Super Moderator Staff Member

    It does have a FAT see http://humaxdisk.wikispaces.com/9200T+FS