PART 4
Hint for advanced users: dmsetup may be used if you prefer to avoid rewriting the partition table for the moment:
echo "0 4294961616 linear /dev/sda 63" | dmsetup create test0
echo "0 1178159317 linear /dev/sda 5284579067" | dmsetup create test1
echo "0 474056704 linear /dev/sda 6734714169 ...
Search found 11 matches
- 06 Apr 2017, 08:53
- Forum: Partition Recovery
- Topic: Hardware RAID 15TB Lost Label & Table
- Replies: 13
- Views: 5804
- 06 Apr 2017, 08:53
- Forum: Partition Recovery
- Topic: Hardware RAID 15TB Lost Label & Table
- Replies: 13
- Views: 5804
Re: Hardware RAID 15TB Lost Label & Table
PART 3:
recover_EXT2: "e2fsck -b 163840 -B 4096 device" may be needed
recover_EXT2: s_block_group_nr=5/23, s_mnt_count=0/4294967295, s_blocks_per_group=32768, s_inodes_per_group=8000
recover_EXT2: s_blocksize=4096
recover_EXT2: s_blocks_count 768000
recover_EXT2: part_size 6144000
Filesystem ...
recover_EXT2: "e2fsck -b 163840 -B 4096 device" may be needed
recover_EXT2: s_block_group_nr=5/23, s_mnt_count=0/4294967295, s_blocks_per_group=32768, s_inodes_per_group=8000
recover_EXT2: s_blocksize=4096
recover_EXT2: s_blocks_count 768000
recover_EXT2: part_size 6144000
Filesystem ...
- 06 Apr 2017, 08:52
- Forum: Partition Recovery
- Topic: Hardware RAID 15TB Lost Label & Table
- Replies: 13
- Views: 5804
Re: Hardware RAID 15TB Lost Label & Table
PART 2:
FAT12 at 822019/147/57
MS Data 13205744552 13205747431 2880
FAT12, blocksize=512, 1474 KB / 1440 KiB
SYSV4 Marker at 822019/195/41
recover_sysv4
Unknown 13205747560 13205750403 2844
SysV4, 1456 KB / 1422 KiB
Partition not added.
SYSV4 Marker at 822020/36/49
recover_sysv4
Unknown ...
FAT12 at 822019/147/57
MS Data 13205744552 13205747431 2880
FAT12, blocksize=512, 1474 KB / 1440 KiB
SYSV4 Marker at 822019/195/41
recover_sysv4
Unknown 13205747560 13205750403 2844
SysV4, 1456 KB / 1422 KiB
Partition not added.
SYSV4 Marker at 822020/36/49
recover_sysv4
Unknown ...
- 06 Apr 2017, 08:51
- Forum: Partition Recovery
- Topic: Hardware RAID 15TB Lost Label & Table
- Replies: 13
- Views: 5804
Re: Hardware RAID 15TB Lost Label & Table
Hi,
Thanks for your help. See below.
Mon Apr 3 13:59:15 2017
Command line: TestDisk
TestDisk 7.1-WIP, Data Recovery Utility, August 2016
Christophe GRENIER <grenier@cgsecurity.org>
http://www.cgsecurity.org
OS: Linux, kernel 4.8.0-36-generic (#36~16.04.1-Ubuntu SMP Sun Feb 5 09:39:57 UTC 2017 ...
Thanks for your help. See below.
Mon Apr 3 13:59:15 2017
Command line: TestDisk
TestDisk 7.1-WIP, Data Recovery Utility, August 2016
Christophe GRENIER <grenier@cgsecurity.org>
http://www.cgsecurity.org
OS: Linux, kernel 4.8.0-36-generic (#36~16.04.1-Ubuntu SMP Sun Feb 5 09:39:57 UTC 2017 ...
- 05 Apr 2017, 20:29
- Forum: Partition Recovery
- Topic: Hardware RAID 15TB Lost Label & Table
- Replies: 13
- Views: 5804
Re: Hardware RAID 15TB Lost Label & Table
Thanks for your reply.
There was definitely only one partition on the entire disk.
Thanks again.
There was definitely only one partition on the entire disk.
Thanks again.
- 04 Apr 2017, 10:36
- Forum: Partition Recovery
- Topic: Hardware RAID 15TB Lost Label & Table
- Replies: 13
- Views: 5804
Re: Hardware RAID 15TB Lost Label & Table
Hi,
Sorry for the multiple posts but I keep discovering more info which I think may be of interest. I've just cross referenced TestDisk 7.1 CHS with what the RAID card is stating via hpacucli.
It looks like 'heads' is matching both with 255.
'Cylinder' in TestDisk is 1,823,985 but hpacucli is 65 ...
Sorry for the multiple posts but I keep discovering more info which I think may be of interest. I've just cross referenced TestDisk 7.1 CHS with what the RAID card is stating via hpacucli.
It looks like 'heads' is matching both with 255.
'Cylinder' in TestDisk is 1,823,985 but hpacucli is 65 ...
- 04 Apr 2017, 09:46
- Forum: Partition Recovery
- Topic: Hardware RAID 15TB Lost Label & Table
- Replies: 13
- Views: 5804
Re: Hardware RAID 15TB Lost Label & Table
Hi,
I've just re-run the analysis on 7.1 with GPT selected instead of 'none'. Please see photo attached.
Thanks.
I've just re-run the analysis on 7.1 with GPT selected instead of 'none'. Please see photo attached.
Thanks.
- 03 Apr 2017, 08:46
- Forum: Partition Recovery
- Topic: Hardware RAID 15TB Lost Label & Table
- Replies: 13
- Views: 5804
Re: Hardware RAID 15TB Lost Label & Table
PART 3:
Results
P ext3 0 1 1 267348 254 57 4294961616
ext3 blocksize=4096 Large_file Sparse_SB, 2199 GB / 2047 GiB
P HFS 328949 212 27 402286 218 60 1178159317 [R¯ß¨h™¢b<ô"H„UÌ¡ž:Fh1Z2x]
HFS blocksize=33554432, 603 GB / 561 GiB
P NTFS 419216 144 58 448725 59 31 474056704
NTFS found using ...
Results
P ext3 0 1 1 267348 254 57 4294961616
ext3 blocksize=4096 Large_file Sparse_SB, 2199 GB / 2047 GiB
P HFS 328949 212 27 402286 218 60 1178159317 [R¯ß¨h™¢b<ô"H„UÌ¡ž:Fh1Z2x]
HFS blocksize=33554432, 603 GB / 561 GiB
P NTFS 419216 144 58 448725 59 31 474056704
NTFS found using ...
- 03 Apr 2017, 08:45
- Forum: Partition Recovery
- Topic: Hardware RAID 15TB Lost Label & Table
- Replies: 13
- Views: 5804
Re: Hardware RAID 15TB Lost Label & Table
PART 2:
FAT12 at 1145998/208/3
FAT12 1145998 208 3 1145999 85 2 8316 [EFI System Partition]
FAT12, blocksize=2048, 4257 KB / 4158 KiB
FAT12 at 1147108/16/13
FAT1 : 1-9
FAT2 : 10-18
start_rootdir : 19
Data : 33-2879
sectors : 2880
cluster_size : 1
no_of_cluster : 2847 (2 - 2848)
fat_length 9 ...
FAT12 at 1145998/208/3
FAT12 1145998 208 3 1145999 85 2 8316 [EFI System Partition]
FAT12, blocksize=2048, 4257 KB / 4158 KiB
FAT12 at 1147108/16/13
FAT1 : 1-9
FAT2 : 10-18
start_rootdir : 19
Data : 33-2879
sectors : 2880
cluster_size : 1
no_of_cluster : 2847 (2 - 2848)
fat_length 9 ...
- 03 Apr 2017, 08:44
- Forum: Partition Recovery
- Topic: Hardware RAID 15TB Lost Label & Table
- Replies: 13
- Views: 5804
Re: Hardware RAID 15TB Lost Label & Table
Hi,
Thanks for the prompt response, its really appreciated. I've posted the log file from 7.1 sorry its long so I've had to do it in two posts. I know there is only one partition on the whole logical drive so I selected 'none' this time. Not sure if this is correct.
Regards,
Paul.
PART 1:
Sun ...
Thanks for the prompt response, its really appreciated. I've posted the log file from 7.1 sorry its long so I've had to do it in two posts. I know there is only one partition on the whole logical drive so I selected 'none' this time. Not sure if this is correct.
Regards,
Paul.
PART 1:
Sun ...