Columbia shuttle data recovery



  • From: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24542368/&GT1=43001 in the middle of the article:

    Edwards attributes that to a lucky twist: The computer was running an
    ancient operating system, DOS, which does not scatter data all over
    drives as other approaches do.

    Typically, I associate ancient with the Roman Empire or similar, not DOS.  I guess TRWTF is Windows, as usual...



  • @AccessGuru said:

    I associate ancient with the Roman Empire or similar, not DOS
     

    In the context of computing... I would definitely consider DOS ancient.



  • I don't even understand why this would make a difference.  If the blocks were unrecoverable, it wouldn't matter what order they were in.  And we're probably not talking about a ton of data if it was running DOS so you'd think it could be pieced back together if a different FS was used.  Of course, not if you're using ReiserFS, then not even the FBI can recover it...



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    If the blocks were unrecoverable, it wouldn't matter what order they were in. 
     

    Maybe aliens reorganized the data. 



  • The WTF I thought of was it was only a 340MB drive ... but then again it was only half full so ...

    Anyway I think this data recovery was pretty incredible.  



  • @AccessGuru said:

    From: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24542368/&GT1=43001 in the middle of the article:

    Edwards attributes that to a lucky twist: The computer was running an ancient operating system, DOS, which does not scatter data all over drives as other approaches do.

    Typically, I associate ancient with the Roman Empire or similar, not DOS.  I guess TRWTF is Windows, as usual...

    I'd consider DOS as "ancient", but then even in computing there are others that better qualify as ancient: System360, MVS, VMS and other stuff few modern users have never heard about.

    I'd also wonder why did they use DOS for scientific research... but then again, they did manage to avoid Windows ;)



  •  Yeah... this made me feel old.  I'm glad everyone else thought of DailyWTF as the first place to go when seeing this. ;)



  • @AccessGuru said:

    From: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24542368/&GT1=43001 in the middle of the article:

    Edwards attributes that to a lucky twist: The computer was running an
    ancient operating system, DOS, which does not scatter data all over
    drives as other approaches do.

    Typically, I associate ancient with the Roman Empire or similar, not DOS.  I guess TRWTF is Windows, as usual...

    Well, if you compare computer history to human history...

    DOS is about 30 years old.
    Human civilization is [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer]about 7000 years old[/url]
    Optimistic: computer history is 200 years old ([url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Babbage#Difference_engine]differential machine #1[/url])
        DOS is one-thousand years old (early middle ages, not really ancient yet)
    Realistic: computer history is 125 years old ([url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabulating_machine]Tabulating machine[/url])
        DOS is 1700 years old (late roman empire).

    So, is DOS ancient? My answer would be: yes.



  • I'm not sure if they were really running DOS as an operating system.
    There was a story about Mars rover Spirit. The article says that Spirit was running an embedded OS (one from Wind River ) which is based on a Linux kernel, but was in fact using DOS file system (this version has "MS-DOS compatible file system" as one of its features ).
    I think it was the same with that computer from Columbia.



  • From what I recall, they intentionally use older chips/hardware on the shuttles because the pathways are less dense.  Solar radiation/etc can introduce random electrical charges that 'jump' the circuitry of newer chips, simply because the paths are so small and densely packed.  The older chips are less susceptible to this effect. 

    Just what I heard though.

    Also, regarding the recovery:  if you recover x% of a drive, and the data is highly fragmented, you may not get much useful information, especially if any level of encryption is used where you need complete sets of data to reconstruct the parts.  (not that I would expect that to be the case here).  With a less fragmented media, you'll have some data completely lost and other data completely (or near completely) recovered.  That makes some sense to me.



  • Also older chips are proven bug-free and come in version that can withstand radiation. What if NASA had decided to go with a AMDK6-2 back in the day...



  • @Spacecoyote said:

    Also older chips are proven bug-free and come in version that can withstand radiation. What if NASA had decided to go with a AMDK6-2 back in the day...

     

    They would have been distracted playing Quake...

     



  • @lonewolf said:

    There was a story about Mars rover Spirit. The article says that Spirit was running an embedded OS (one from Wind River ) which is based on a Linux kernel

    VxWorks is NOT based on Linux kernel.

     



  • @dtech said:

    Well, if you compare computer history to human history...

    DOS is about 30 years old.
    Human civilization is about 7000 years old
    Optimistic: computer history is 200 years old (differential machine #1)
        DOS is one-thousand years old (early middle ages, not really ancient yet)
    Realistic: computer history is 125 years old (Tabulating machine)
        DOS is 1700 years old (late roman empire).

    So, is DOS ancient? My answer would be: yes.

     

    What about the Antikythera mechanism?

    That makes computer history 2100 years old, which makes DOS only 100 years old using your relative scale ;P

    But if Babbage doesn't get counted, then neither does ancient Greece I guess..



  • DOS means disk operating system right? nothing to do with windows, linux is a dos etc ... maybe the author of that article was just providing an acronym for a common term (operating system) got things a little confused, and added in the D somehow.

     



  • @dysmas said:

    DOS means disk operating system right? nothing to do with windows, linux is a dos etc ... maybe the author of that article as just providing an acronym for a common term (operating system) and got things a little confused, and added in the D somehow.

     

    No. DOS is indeed the abbreviation for "Disk Operating System". But it is just the name of the OS. There is no "a dos". Linux is not "a dos". The largest common divisor between the two is OS, "Operating system". (Well, you could say they are both x86 OS'ses, but linux supports more)

    I think the "author confused" is not likely. The article specificly states that data is not fragmented, which is what DOS does.

    BTW, all modern file-systems fragment. Even ext3.



  • @dtech said:

    No. DOS is indeed the abbreviation for "Disk Operating System". But it is just the name of the OS. There is no "a dos". Linux is not "a dos" ...

    While i maintain DOS to be a generic term for a system that can
    operate a disk, and the fact that there is more than one means that there is such a thing as "a dos", that usually exhibit traits such as being a single user, single tasking
    character based environment, and i believe various DOSs used things other than x86
    processors, i will not continue that,

    Abobe/previous post was/is meant kinda tounge in cheek,

    I wonder why they did not say fat16 / whatever filesystem it uses, or does it really use MS-DOS.



  •  @ActionMan said:

    But if Babbage doesn't get counted, then neither does ancient Greece I guess..

     

    Charles Babbage designed the difference engine (referred to above as "differential machine #1." Incidentally, in recent years, there have been several working replicas built, including a very spiffy shiny one I saw the other day, as well as a Lego Technix version (not as spiffy, but extremely cool).



  • @ActionMan said:

    What about the Antikythera mechanism?

    That makes computer history 2100 years old, which makes DOS only 100 years old using your relative scale ;P

    But if Babbage doesn't get counted, then neither does ancient Greece I guess..

    It is still not without debate if the Antikythera was indeed a calculator and could be classified as a computer. (And no: because it's on wikipedia doesn't mean it's the truth)

    Furthermore, computer developments have at least been steady since the differential machine. There was no development for at least 2000 years before that one. There has also been a steady development in human civilization since the Sumer. Who knows if there are more ancient civilazations which quickly degraded...



  • @dtech said:

    @ActionMan said:

    ;-P

    ^º¿º^
     



  • @dysmas said:

    I wonder why they did not say fat16 / whatever filesystem it uses, or does it really use MS-DOS
     

    What if it was PC-DOS?  

    And if it were MS-DOS, what version?  My money is on 5.0.  If it was 4.x that explains why it crashed...  

     @dysmas said:

    While i maintain DOS to be a generic term for a system that can
    operate a disk

    I can understand your point, I don't agree though.  If you look at a lot of college curriculums you won't see courses on Fundamentals of Disk Operating Systems, but you will see Fundamentals of Operating Systems, and Operating System Design, etc...  Not saying colleges do things right by any means, but if we were to apply a benchmark for validity of the acronym.  Or for that matter, if you asked most of the community what they thought when you said "DOS" 90% would probably say 'MS Dos or refer to MS DOS or PC-DOS in some way.  so yeah, basically what dtech said.  

     

     



  • @cege7480 said:

    I can understand your point, I don't agree though.  If you look at a lot of college curriculums you won't see courses on Fundamentals of Disk Operating Systems, but you will see Fundamentals of Operating Systems, and Operating System Design, etc...  Not saying colleges do things right by any means, but if we were to apply a benchmark for validity of the acronym.  Or for that matter, if you asked most of the community what they thought when you said "DOS" 90% would probably say 'MS Dos or refer to MS DOS or PC-DOS in some way.  so yeah, basically what dtech said.  

     

     

    Right, even if DOS technically just stands for a "disk operating system," the word itself has come to have a completely different meaning, if you want to get really pedantic about it. It's like with PC - it stands for Personal Computer, which includes Apples, but the word PC means only IBM-compatibles (there's gotta be a better word for that than "IBM-compatible"...).



  • @cege7480 said:

    @dysmas said:

    I wonder why they did not say fat16 / whatever filesystem it uses, or does it really use MS-DOS
     

    What if it was PC-DOS?  

    And if it were MS-DOS, what version?  My money is on 5.0.  If it was 4.x that explains why it crashed...  

    PC-DOS is just a rebranded version of MS-DOS.



  • @dtech said:

    PC-DOS is just a rebranded version of MS-DOS.

     

    True. What if it was DR-DOS? 



  • @ammoQ said:

    @dtech said:

    PC-DOS is just a rebranded version of MS-DOS.

     

    True. What if it was DR-DOS? 


    Then I think the last working instance of it went down in flames with the shuttle ;)



  • Regions of the platters were damaged to the point that no data could be recovered from them. Luckily, those regions were the empty ones. But if the filesystem had tended to put files everywhere rather than at the first possible location, then those regions would not have been empty.

    Of course things could have been different.



  • @cege7480 said:

    Your mom is a rebranded version of MS-DOS
     

    4chan called, they need their idiot back.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    4chan called, they need their idiot back.

    I really doubt 4chan is running out of idiots...



  •  @bstorer said:

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:
    4chan called, they need their idiot back.

    I really doubt 4chan is running out of idiots...

    Touche.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    ... called, they need their idiot back.
     

    plz dont break rules 1 & 2 kthbxbai



  • @m0ffx said:

    plz dont break rules 1 & 2 kthbxbai
     

    plz send teh rulez. Where teh rulez?



  • @burntfuse said:

    @cege7480 said:

    I can understand your point, I don't agree though.  If you look at a lot of college curriculums you won't see courses on Fundamentals of Disk Operating Systems, but you will see Fundamentals of Operating Systems, and Operating System Design, etc...  Not saying colleges do things right by any means, but if we were to apply a benchmark for validity of the acronym.  Or for that matter, if you asked most of the community what they thought when you said "DOS" 90% would probably say 'MS Dos or refer to MS DOS or PC-DOS in some way.  so yeah, basically what dtech said.  

     

     

    Right, even if DOS technically just stands for a "disk operating system," the word itself has come to have a completely different meaning, if you want to get really pedantic about it. It's like with PC - it stands for Personal Computer, which includes Apples, but the word PC means only IBM-compatibles (there's gotta be a better word for that than "IBM-compatible"...).

    DOS basically became warped into "MS-DOS and friends" for so long, the original meaning of DOS was forgot; add into that that the D part of DOS kind of was no longer descriptive: most DOS installations did not start from a diskette (or floppy diskette) anymore, but did so from a hard disk. Of course, you could always SYS C: A: but you couldn't cram all the nice DOS utils from C:\DOS into a single diskette anymore.

    I wonder if the first Mac versions (up to System Software 6) would classify as "a DOS", as they ran from a floppy. IIRC, System 7 was too big to just copy a System Folder on a floppy. I think it was possible, but its been 10 years since I last touched one.

    Oh, and thanks to the Intel-switch, you can finally call Macs PC's, as they are now "IBM-Compatible" as well. ;)



  • @danixdefcon5 said:

    DOS basically became warped into "MS-DOS and friends" for so long, the original meaning of DOS was forgot; add into that that the D part of DOS kind of was no longer descriptive: most DOS installations did not start from a diskette (or floppy diskette) anymore, but did so from a hard disk. Of course, you could always SYS C: A: but you couldn't cram all the nice DOS utils from C:\DOS into a single diskette anymore.
     

    Again.  That is marketing.  It doesn't matter what is neccessarily correct just what everyone believes is correct.  Language is an amazing thing.

     @danixdefcon5 said:

    Oh, and thanks to the Intel-switch, you can finally call Macs PC's, as they are now "IBM-Compatible" as well. ;)

     Incorrect.  That would imply they could run systems like MS-DOS, Windows, Vista, Linux (lets say a PC distro of linux) without any modification.  But as many people know, Mac's operate on a different BIOS (Its not called a BIOS IN mac world, but it is the equivilent I believe) which means users have to hack around it to get things like Vista/XP to run.  I think that is another mis-nomer in saying it is IBM-Compatible.  

     

    EDIT:  That crazy bastard Steve Jobs would probably disagree with you as well. 



  • @AccessGuru said:

    Typically, I associate ancient with the Roman Empire or similar
    I think of the Gatebuilders, but they used GUIs thousands of years before DOS crawled out of the pond.  Whatever operating systems they used, they're extremely compatible with moderncontempory Earth technology.



  • @danixdefcon5 said:

    DOS basically became warped into "MS-DOS and friends" for so long, the original meaning of DOS was forgot; add into that that the D part of DOS kind of was no longer descriptive: most DOS installations did not start from a diskette (or floppy diskette) anymore, but did so from a hard disk.


    Because a hard disk isn't a disK?

    @cege7480 said:

    @danixdefcon5 said:

    DOS basically became warped into "MS-DOS and friends" for so long, the original meaning of DOS was forgot; add into that that the D part of DOS kind of was no longer descriptive: most DOS installations did not start from a diskette (or floppy diskette) anymore, but did so from a hard disk. Of course, you could always SYS C: A: but you couldn't cram all the nice DOS utils from C:\DOS into a single diskette anymore.
     

    Again.  That is marketing.  It doesn't matter what is neccessarily correct just what everyone believes is correct.  Language is an amazing thing.

     @danixdefcon5 said:

    Oh, and thanks to the Intel-switch, you can finally call Macs PC's, as they are now "IBM-Compatible" as well. ;)

     Incorrect.  That would imply they could run systems like MS-DOS, Windows, Vista, Linux (lets say a PC distro of linux) without any modification.  But as many people know, Mac's operate on a different BIOS (Its not called a BIOS IN mac world, but it is the equivilent I believe) which means users have to hack around it to get things like Vista/XP to run.  I think that is another mis-nomer in saying it is IBM-Compatible.  

     

    EDIT:  That crazy bastard Steve Jobs would probably disagree with you as well. 

    Untrue. Firstly, with a BIOS emulator for the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Firmware_Interface]EFI[/url] those OS'ses can be run without modification (boot camp). Furthermore, Linux and Windows Vista x64 SP1 can run on it without the emulator.

    Plus, EFI is likely to replace BIOS over time on all PC's, so would all those PC's not become PC's then anymore?

    I believe some laptops with intel chipsets even already have a "BIOS" thats really an EFI.



  • @dtech said:

    Untrue. Firstly, with a BIOS emulator for the EFI those OS'ses can be run without modification (boot camp). Furthermore, Linux and Windows Vista x64 SP1 can run on it without the emulator.
    Plus, EFI is likely to replace BIOS over time on all PC's, so would all those PC's not become PC's then anymore?
    I believe some laptops with intel chipsets even already have a "BIOS" thats really an EFI.

     

    You said it, an emulator.  Which in my mind would be a modification. 



  • @dtech said:

    @cege7480 said:

    @danixdefcon5 said:

    Oh, and thanks to the Intel-switch, you can finally call Macs PC's, as they are now "IBM-Compatible" as well. ;)

     Incorrect.  That would imply they could run systems like MS-DOS, Windows, Vista, Linux (lets say a PC distro of linux) without any modification. 

    Untrue. Firstly, with a BIOS emulator for the EFI those OS'ses can be run without modification (boot camp). Furthermore, Linux and Windows Vista x64 SP1 can run on it without the emulator.
    Plus, EFI is likely to replace BIOS over time on all PC's, so would all those PC's not become PC's then anymore?
    I believe some laptops with intel chipsets even already have a "BIOS" thats really an EFI.

    Yup. That was my point. Apple basically sells Macs with the same hardware, that have EFI instead of BIOS. Still, Vista and EFI-aware Linux distros can still run without emulation. If PC's actually start coming out with EFI, then I think even that distinction would be lost. The day Apple returns to PowerPC (or actually starts using a non-Intel arch at that) will be the day I stop calling Macs "nice PCs".



  • @danixdefcon5 said:

    The day Apple returns to PowerPC (or actually starts using a non-Intel arch at that) will be the day I stop calling Macs "bad PCs".
     

    FTFY


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.