(Sorry in advance for the lengthy post, I just wanted to be thorough)

Hello all HD Gurus - I've been trolling this forum for a few weeks now and I've finally got to the point with where I need to get some real advice about h my situation from knowledgeable folks. The headline is that I have a dead 1TB LaCie NAS from which I'm trying to recover data with very limited success. I would love any and all insights on how to fix this, and I'll happily post my findings as they develop. I configured this is a 1TB volume, which I believe makes it a RAID 0 array.

Overview
Just before Christmas, my NAS (which contains about 15,000 files, mostly family photos and MP3s totaling about 30GB) stopped responding as a network drive on my PC and my wife's Mac laptop. I noticed that the power supply had been hissing so I unplugged it and plugged it back in. The drive subsequently didn't respond when I pressed the power button. I figured, no problem, the power supply is dead. I ordered at new one from LaCie ($50) and tried it after the holiday. No dice. The drive remained totally unresponsive. I called LaCie and opened a ticket. They said I should send in the drive and they would replace it ... and all of my data would be lost. Not such a good solution. So I broke the warranty, pulled out both Seagate 500GB drives and installed them in my PC. After booting the PC, all drives were recognized in Windows and I opted not initialize any of them (though interestingly, the BIOS didn't pick them up even after an update). I went out and bought a 2TB drive to and spent last weekend making images of the Seagates so I could work with them (I'll call them 129 and 131, with 131 being what I think is the "primary" drive as it has a bunch of partitions recognized by Windows). I then disconnected the Seagates leaving them in the PC chassis for future formatting and use, as they seem to be running fine.

So here's what I've tried so far and the results (the following were done on the images only):
-- I tried using RAID reconstructor from Runtime and it can't make any significant findings during its tests. Basically, the software said don't bother building a RAID 0 from its interface.
-- I tried using R-Studio, but its but frankly I didn't really know what to do with it. I started a scan and it ran very slowly, but some "Extra Files" were found and they appeared to be OK in the preview window. This was the case on both drives. When I used the
-- I tried WinHex, but it was too advanced and I was too tired to deal with it. Also, as soon as I dug in, it said I needed a licesnes
-- I tried using UFS Explorer and it found a lot of stuff on 131, including a very intact folder structure and a lot of files that I was able to copy off (after I bought the license). However, UFS Explorer couldn't find anything on 129, just one partition with an "Unrecognized File System". I used both Versions 3 and 4 (which I bought, and in retrospect, probably shouldn't have until writing this post).

These were the four main avenues that I saw most folks discussing on this forum and elsewhere, and it seems like each has it's own benefits (except WinHex, maybe) but I don't know how to go about getting the data back in total. I'm encouraged because about half of the data seemed fine (photos were viewable, MP3s played, etc) using UFS and R-Studio found data on 129 as "extra files".

Questions/Help Needed
1. Does anyone know the specific parameters for building an image of the RAID on any of the above software products? I don't really know blocks from sectors, and my knowledge of how RAIDs actually get configured under the covers is very limited. For example, I see I was hopeful that RAID Reconstructor would figure it out for me, but no luck. This made me think something was wrong with 129, though I have no proof.
2. If I can't rebuild the array in total, does anyone have suggestions on how to systematically get the data off the drives, especially 129? Am I missing something with the unrecognized FS? It seems like RAID Reconstructor found some stuff on there after a scan, which leads me to believe if I could get both drives working, I'm might be able to get the data off each individually. This would mean that my data never actually striped, so I don't know if that's possible, or if this is not a RAID configuration after all.
3. What is de-striping and how can i go about it with the configuration I've got?

Any help would be great ... I have a lot of the data backed up to Amazon S3, but it will be a real headache to restore this back to my local system (and it will cost me download charges from AWS), but I can get some of this back if I can't get 129 and 131 back.

Thanks a lot in advance ... and thanks to other posts that helped me get this far.

Dave

Hardware Setup
Product details
http://www.lacie.com/us/support/support ... ?pid=10882
Dell XPS 700 running Windows Vista
All drives use the built in SATA ports
No RAID configured in the BIOS

This is what got me started
failed-lacie-ethernet-big-disk-raid-t9271.html

Hi dave,

Just use UFS explorer and configure your images as Spanning raid.
You don't need block size or parity rotation for spanning configuration.
Images order should be 131 and 129.

Good luck

(First, my apologies to all readers on my grammar and style on the OP. I had not had enough coffee when I typed it up).

Thanks for the reply, Pninja!

When I used the 4.x "Access" version of UFS Explorer, and tried configuring the RAID as a JBOD, the software said there were no recognizable partitions after I clicked "browse". I used all the defaults. Is this what you were suggesting I try?

I'm also a little confused about the different versions of the UFS software. I liked the UI on 3.x, but accidentally bought the 4.x. which is not quite as robust (it seems). Suggestions here?

DP

Maybe images order was incorrect. From your explanation, order should be:
131 (the one that has visible partitions and file system)
129

BTW, using UFS Explorer what type of raid did you choose? Hardware or software?

regards

Thanks.

I set it up w/131 then 129 as RAID 0. There was no software or hardware option. I tried all block sizes to no avail. I'm doing a deep scan for file systems on 129 right now and we'll see what it yields ... I saw it pick up an XFS file system, but I'm killing myself trying rebuild the RAID. I've tried all software listed above and I know I'm close. I can see some stuff in previews and the like.

I'm open to all suggestions.

Thx
DP

A quick update ... I ran the UFS Explorer filesystem "finder" and it found an XFS filesystem on 129. However, I could not browse that file system. What's killing me is that I can see the entire top level folder structure on 131, but all the files are not there.

For some reason, none of the above mentioned programs can link together the two disks, though both appear to be just fine. Any other tips would be greatly appreciated.

TIA

DP

I have the exact same problem. Using the trial software, I can see one of the large partitions with about half the data.

I know it's possible, I used a program called RAID Reconstructor and "Captain Nemo" (Runtime Software) to do the exact same thing to an older LACIE drive. It worked perfectly. I called Lacie about the Ethernet big disk and they told me the only difference is that the newer SATA ones uses the XFS file sytstem, which the Runtime software does not support. I was about to purchase UFS Explorer because it states it can recover XFS... have you had any luck? Have you contacted UFS Explorer?

TIA

Well, guys, I am sorry to tell you that you need to know the "slack" at the end of the first drive to make it work. In my experience, the empty space at the end of the first partition differs... You have to think when dealing with those. Use WinHex or some other editor and try to find the end of the first drive...

Good luck, you'll need it

In this case, I would advise to rebuild the RAID (0) based on the XFS-partitions, not on the complete drives. Both drives will most likely have some small SWAP-partitions in the beginning of the drive. This will f*ck up your rebuild-attempt. My advise: Find out on which sectors the partitions on both drives start (should be the same) and mark this amount as the number of sectors to be skipped when you rebuild the RAID-set. The order should be as said before. My guess is that on both drives you will have to put in a skip-range of 2008125 sectors, but check this first.

Hope this helps a little.