Corrupt split BKF file!

[lolager109]

I can't restore my data from my BKF files, even I'm not able to open them. I'm using Symantec Backup Exec 12 and have used the same to create my backup files. Are they corrupted? I haven't received any corruption error yet. Whenever I try to open any of those files system starts hanging. Then I have to cancel from Task manager. I have asked some technical experts about this issue and I was told that the files are corrupted by them. Any help would surely be appreciated.

Thank you all.

[jaclaz]

First thing make a copy of those files.

Then on the copy, try:

http://code.google.com/p/bkfjtools/

and/or:

http://www.winhelponline.com/blog/restore-bkf-file-ntbackup-windows-7-vista/

jaclaz

[allen2]

How are you trying to "open" those .bkf ?

Backup exec (and many other backup) file need to be inventoried and then catalogued before being restored. A part of the procedure is described there but it is more properly explained in backup exec manual.

[lolager109]

First thing make a copy of those files.

Then on the copy, try:

http://code.google.com/p/bkfjtools/

and/or:

http://www.winhelponline.com/blog/restore-bkf-file-ntbackup-windows-7-vista/

jaclaz

I've tried this. The first link given by you can be opened but didn't work at all, but the other one is not even getting opened. I really didn't understand. May you please go in little depth, since technically I'm not that good?

Thanks.

Since you are not getting any error message, so it may difficult to tell whether the file is corrupted or not. As you mentioned that you system starts hanging while opening any of your BKF files, there may be two reasons behind this situation:

1. The Symantec Backup Exec you are using to open the BKF files has some problem. Try to open and restore other BKF files. If all the BKF files are having the same problem, then you may create a new one (small one) and try to open it. If the file gets opened, this means other files are undoubtedly corrupted. But if this new file is also unable to be opened, this means the exec program is faulty. You need to uninstall it and then install it again or if required then download a new one.
   
2. But if the files are really corrupted, then you may go for a third-party recovery software. You may Google some BKF recovery software and choose any reliable one.
   

Good luck in your searching.

No, my Symantec backup exec is working nicely. I have some other BKF files which are saved inside my Pendrive. They can be easily opened as well restored by using the same backup exec. File corruption seems to be the possible cause. I searched some third-party recovery software, there were many but hardly anyone supports Symantec backup recovery. Any help.

How are you trying to "open" those .bkf ?

Backup exec (and many other backup) file need to be inventoried and then catalogued before being restored. A part of the procedure is described there but it is more properly explained in backup exec manual.

By using my Symantec backup exec. I've already tried to catalogue my files, but still no luck. Any help?

[lolager109]

Thanks for sharing this software. I've read about it, it seems to be nice here. Just downloaded its demo and going to check it. Hope everything will be alright here.

[jaclaz]

I've tried this. The first link given by you can be opened but didn't work at all, but the other one is not even getting opened. I really didn't understand. May you please go in little depth, since technically I'm not that good?

Thanks.

Sure, but I am failing to see how can I help you.

What exactly do you mean by "is not even getting opened" ?

What is not getting opened? (in second link there are two methods)

I've just found a reliable software on Google named as SysInfoTools Backup Exec BKF Repair. It supports recovery of split BKF files. Here is the link of the software, you can read more about this software here. It's demo version is freely available. You can check its demo before buying the software.

Hope this helps you. Good luck.

Regards.

(Note: I'm not endorsing any software, I found it on Google and it seems to be helpful here.)

I wonder how you can affirm that it is reliable from the result of a google search, unless you are endorsing it.

jaclaz

[jaclaz]

I tell you how I can certify that it is reliable. As I wrote there that I found this software on Google, so it's quite usual that I first read about the software and then suggested here. I hope you understand this.

I don't understand (call me tough as much as you want ).

As I see it, and possibly I am very wrong about this, either you used this specific software, extensively and on several different cases of corrupted .bkf files, and then you can "certify" that is "reliable", or you "just found about it" through google and possibly read about it being reliable on some site that you do not reference.

Please, don't take as anything "personal", but I tend to be particularly attentive to the contents posted by new members that just join to reply to a question, initially providing "generic" advice, and soon after adding a link to a Commercial tool.

There is a new "trend" in spamming that works like this:

• a new user joins and asks a question about an issue <- this is "normal" it happens all the time
  
• soon after another new user replies with an answer involving a Commercial software <- this is "queer"
  
• a short time after the OP replies confirming that the suggested Commercial software worked fine to solve his problem
  

A few examples of this "strange" type of threads:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/247353-49-corrupt-symantec-file

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/57702-63-cannot-open-backup-file

The "old way" of simply joining a board to post the suggestion, example:

http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/windowsbackup/thread/2d3ce954-f2e0-436a-8df0-aa0c51b96771/

And how this can evolve into an "all spammers" thread:

http://www.cobiansoft.se/forum/yaf_postst3230_How-to-extract-or-open-BKF-files.aspx

http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/winserverfiles/thread/30d48b65-dc77-4d5c-9117-8eaf4de648d6

http://www.syschat.com/how-can-restore-corrupt-bkf-files-7213.html

http://www.syschat.com/how-do-i-restore-my-corrupt-7211.html

and in some cases the thing becomes even a long dialog, somewhat "funny":

http://www.syschat.com/corrupt-backup-file-need-software-repair-7122.html

Of course this does not necessarily applies to you or to this thread, I am just explaining the reason why I asked you about your experience with the specific tool.

jaclaz

[Tripredacus]

I wonder how you can affirm that it is reliable from the result of a google search, unless you are endorsing it.

jaclaz

I tell you how I can certify that it is reliable. As I wrote there that I found this software on Google, so it's quite usual that I first read about the software and then suggested here. I hope you understand this.

Thank you.

That's not what MY google results tell me. After the website and corporate Youtube account results, I have this:

http://www.dropoutgotrich.com/product-review/sysinfotools-scam/

The comment on the article specifically refers to this BKF product. But the strange part is that this version you linked to is specifically called v1.0 and it apparently came out in February or March of this year. Oh and it is $199... BUT here's where the strange part comes up, you can buy version 2.0 for more than half that price and apparently it came out BEFORE version 1.0. You can see it here:

http://download.cnet.com/SysInfoTools-BKF-Repair/3000-2248_4-11666916.html

Since version 1.0, the new version, only had 68 downloads with no reviews on Softpedia, and v2.0 (the old new version) only has 81 downloads on C-Net with no reviews, I'm not sure how anyone could determine via the google that this product is reliable, especially without any first hand knowledge of the product itself.

[jaclaz]

If I may, there is some confusion.

Seemingly there is a SysInfoTools BKF Recovery, currently at version 4.0:

http://www.sysinfotools.com/recovery/bkf-recovery.html

that CNET calls "SysInfoTools BKF Repair":

v2.0 (Tripredacus' link):

http://download.cnet.com/SysInfoTools-BKF-Repair/3000-2248_4-11666916.html

v4.0

http://download.cnet.com/SysInfoTools-BKF-Repair/3000-2248_4-75330497.html

And a (possibly more "specific") SysInfoTools Backup Exec BKF Repair v1.0

http://www.sysinfotools.com/recovery/backup-exec-bkf-repair.html

There is even a third program, SysInfoTools Exchange BKF Recovery v2.0:

http://www.sysinfotools.com/products/backup-recovery.html

http://www.sysinfotools.com/recovery/exchange-bkf-recovery.html

jaclaz

Edited March 12, 2013 by jaclaz

[jaclaz]

It seems you are confused with the versions.

....

Read about software and their functionalities first before putting comments.

Regards.

Well, one thing is reading, and another one is reading.

I tend to read also something besides the Systool site, if you read (attentively) my previous post, it says EXACTLY what you are accusing me to be confused about.

About this:

I have also read this blog and the comment on it. The blog reads that SysInfoTools is a scam since the user didn't get its refund. While the comment made by other user reads that he received a fair refund by SysInfoTools when the software BKF Recovery software didn't work or fail to recover data. It seems the is a genuine user of SysInfoTools and when he saw the defamation of SysInfoTools is this blog regarding for Money-back policy, since he experienced such a thing in his past, he shared his words. This might be possible that the blogger is working for any other data recovery software company, and this is quite usual that one defames others or one's competitors. He must be making a fool of us. If he was not sure about the results, why did he purchase the full software instead of checking the demo version? One must check anything before buying it.

Every interpretation (and the contrary of it) is possible, it is also possible that there was an issue in the system (a glitch on the matrix ) and that the blogger didn't actually get the refund he asked for (provided that the request for refund was legitimate).

Then, the company making SEO for Sysinfotools may have though that since the blog would have constituted an issue, it would have been fine to mitigate the effect by posting a (fake) satisfied customer reply.

Quite frankly, with the BIG exception of MS and their "scroogle" campaign, I find it rare that a company defames another one, but it is still possible.

BUT as an example there is an ongoing scandal revolving around TripAdvisor and similar sites where the number of fake reviews (positive if sponsored by the hotel/restaurant manager and very negative if sposored by the competitors) have reached the press in several countries.

The point is more or less "do not trust at face value anything that you read on the internet and be very aware that contents may be real, fake, true or false indifferently, take always care to verify/check before trusting anything".

jaclaz