September 7th, 2010, 12:03
September 7th, 2010, 12:04
dev117 wrote:I know the RAID is reconstructed properly
September 7th, 2010, 12:18
September 7th, 2010, 12:27
September 7th, 2010, 13:10
dev117 wrote:I repaired the damaged drive in the RAID
September 7th, 2010, 13:39
September 8th, 2010, 6:53
September 8th, 2010, 10:22
N.C. wrote:Are you sure it is EXT3 FS, no any other?
Linux can work with a lot of FSes...
September 9th, 2010, 6:30
dev117 wrote:I'm working with a linux RAID 0, but I haven't been able to view the files in the FS. I know the RAID is reconstructed properly and I can see an Ext3 partition in R-Studio and WinHex, but I can't view the files inside it (only shows inodes in R-Studio). I've tried scanning with R-Studio and UFS and have tried using linux to recover as well, all with no luck. I need the file names and organization of the file system or it will be pretty much useless. Any ideas on other DR software I can try to view the files?
September 9th, 2010, 7:46
DR-Kiev wrote:dev117 wrote:I'm working with a linux RAID 0, but I haven't been able to view the files in the FS. I know the RAID is reconstructed properly and I can see an Ext3 partition in R-Studio and WinHex, but I can't view the files inside it (only shows inodes in R-Studio). I've tried scanning with R-Studio and UFS and have tried using linux to recover as well, all with no luck. I need the file names and organization of the file system or it will be pretty much useless. Any ideas on other DR software I can try to view the files?
I think you just not correct reconstructed this Raid0. Some controllers has mutual offset between the disks, for example for Adaptec1200A it is only 10 sectors .
September 9th, 2010, 7:47
dev117 wrote:N.C. wrote:Are you sure it is EXT3 FS, no any other?
Linux can work with a lot of FSes...
I'm pretty sure it's Ext3; that's what the customer reported it as and it is recognized as Ext3 in everything I've tried.
September 10th, 2010, 14:37
N.C. wrote:dev117 wrote:N.C. wrote:Are you sure it is EXT3 FS, no any other?
Linux can work with a lot of FSes...
I'm pretty sure it's Ext3; that's what the customer reported it as and it is recognized as Ext3 in everything I've tried.
Can you please post the result of this command:
mdadm --detail /dev/md.... ?
Janos
September 12th, 2010, 13:07
dev117 wrote:N.C. wrote:dev117 wrote:N.C. wrote:Are you sure it is EXT3 FS, no any other?
Linux can work with a lot of FSes...
I'm pretty sure it's Ext3; that's what the customer reported it as and it is recognized as Ext3 in everything I've tried.
Can you please post the result of this command:
mdadm --detail /dev/md.... ?
Janos
Since I've copied the RAID to a separate drive, it shows as "sd...". I no longer have the original machine either. I ran mdadm on sda to see the output, which was:
"dev/sda is not an md array"
"dev/sda: No md superblock found, not an md component."
Any ideas on which direction to take from here? Thanks for the input guys.
September 13th, 2010, 10:59
September 13th, 2010, 14:54
dev117 wrote:Yes, I copied the entire raid to a single drive (500 GB RAID, 500 GB Drive). As mentioned, it recognizes as an Ext3 partition but I cannot view the files within the FS. Since the file names are critical, I cannot carve. I was just wondering if anyone had any other suggestions for tools to use to try and repair the Ext3 partition so I can view/recover the files contained.
September 13th, 2010, 15:41
N.C. wrote:dev117 wrote:Yes, I copied the entire raid to a single drive (500 GB RAID, 500 GB Drive). As mentioned, it recognizes as an Ext3 partition but I cannot view the files within the FS. Since the file names are critical, I cannot carve. I was just wondering if anyone had any other suggestions for tools to use to try and repair the Ext3 partition so I can view/recover the files contained.
wait a minute!
If the original array was 2x250GB RAID0, the result will be slightly bigger than one 500GB drive!
Are you sure, your image are fit on the destination drive?
Janos
September 13th, 2010, 15:56
dev117 wrote:the original array was 4 drives: 3x500GB and 1x250GB. It was partitioned into a 250 GB boot partition and a 500 GB data partition.
September 13th, 2010, 16:00
drc wrote:dev117 wrote:the original array was 4 drives: 3x500GB and 1x250GB. It was partitioned into a 250 GB boot partition and a 500 GB data partition.
Are you sure? This doesn't make any sense.
250GB boot (not in RAID) and 1000GB data (RAID5) makes a lot more sense to me
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.