Data Recovery Case File · NAS & Network Storage · Several Drives, One Fall
A Dropped Multi-Drive Unit Is Several Mechanical Assessments, Not One
His enquiry asks for something reasonable that nobody has given him. A network unit that fell from a shelf and stopped working, inspected by two technical people who both reported internal damage and could not retrieve anything, both suggesting he send it away — where "the costs involved are very vague and very high." There is a real reason the figures were vague, and it is worth setting out rather than repeating.
| Media | Multi-drive network storage unit subjected to a fall — internal damage reported by two prior inspections; member drives not individually assessed |
| Reported situation | Network storage unit falling from a shelf · unit ceasing to work · inspection by two separate technical parties · both reporting internal damage · neither able to retrieve content · both recommending specialist recovery · quotations described as vague and high · clearer indication of cost sought |
| Fault class | Impact sustained by multiple drives simultaneously — each member requiring individual assessment; array reconstruction dependent on the recoverable extent of each |
| Equipment used | Cost structure explained by member count before any commitment · each member removed and assessed individually on a controlled bench supply · laminar flow bench inspection per member where impact damage was indicated · members imaged individually under capped timeouts · array assembled offline from images with parameters derived from the members |
The decode: why the price is uncertain, and what determines it
Why a dropped unit is different from a dropped drive: it contains several. Every drive inside took the same impact at the same moment, and each may have been affected differently depending on its position and what it was doing.
Why that multiplies the work rather than adding to it: each member is a separate mechanical assessment. A four-drive unit is four drives to inspect, four to image, and potentially four to open — and the cost follows the number that need work rather than the unit.
Why nobody could quote firmly: the answer depends on how many members are damaged, and that is not knowable from outside. One drive needing donor parts and three imaging cleanly is a very different figure from four needing donor parts.
Why that makes the vagueness honest rather than evasive: a firm figure before assessment would be a guess presented as a price. What should be offered instead is the structure — a per-drive rate and an assessment that establishes how many drives it applies to.
Why it is also genuinely high: mechanical recovery is the most expensive class of work, and this is potentially several of them. The figure is not inflated by the unit being a unit; it reflects that a fall may have created several separate jobs.
What could make it much cheaper, and is worth establishing first: the possibility that fewer members are damaged than assumed. Drives are not equally vulnerable to a fall depending on orientation and whether they were writing, and a unit that was idle may have several intact members.
Why that possibility is realistic: a drive parks its heads when idle, and a parked drive survives falls far better. If the unit was not being written to at the moment it fell, the damage may be limited.
Why the array configuration then matters enormously: with parity or mirroring, not every member needs to be recovered. A set that tolerates one or two failures needs only enough members to reconstruct, so damaged drives can sometimes be left out entirely.
Why that should be established before any drive is opened: it may remove the most expensive work from the job. Knowing the configuration and which members read cleanly can reduce this from four mechanical recoveries to none.
What should be asked of anyone quoting: the per-drive rate, what assessment costs, how many members need to be recovered given the configuration, and what is payable if a member cannot be recovered. Those four questions convert a vague figure into a structure.
On the bench
The cost structure was explained by member count before any commitment — a multi-drive unit containing several drives that took the same impact simultaneously, each requiring individual mechanical assessment, so cost follows the number needing work rather than the unit itself, and cannot be determined before assessment. Parked heads survive falls considerably better, so an idle unit may retain intact members, while parity or mirroring means not every member need be recovered. Each member was assessed individually.
The outcome
The cost structure explained by member count, each member assessed individually, and the array assembled offline from images. Free assessment, one fixed written figure including VAT, charged per drive, with 50% of parts and labour upfront and the balance only on successful recovery. The decode: the vagueness was honest. A dropped unit is several mechanical assessments and nobody knows how many need work until they look — but the configuration may mean not every member has to be recovered at all.
Getting a straight answer on a dropped multi-drive unit
Ask four questions rather than for a single figure: the per-drive rate, what assessment costs, how many members actually need recovering given your array configuration, and what's payable if one can't be recovered. That converts a vague quote into a structure. The vagueness is usually honest — a dropped unit is several separate mechanical assessments, and nobody can know how many drives were damaged without looking. Two things may make it much cheaper: drives park their heads when idle and survive falls far better, and parity or mirroring means not every member needs recovering.
Ask for the structure — call Manchester Data Recovery on 0161 871 0788; cost explained by member count before commitment, each member assessed individually, array assembled offline from images.
Request a quote online →
Our case files are drawn from genuine enquiries received by our laboratory over the past ten years, anonymised to protect client confidentiality. Each one describes the diagnostic and recovery procedure our engineers apply to that fault, using the equipment listed.