Recovering linux RAID 1 partitions + files on 1 TB drive requires more than 3.6 TB

How to use TestDisk to recover lost partition
Forum rules
When asking for technical support:
- Search for posts on the same topic before posting a new question.
- Give clear, specific information in the title of your post.
- Include as many details as you can, MOST POSTS WILL GET ONLY ONE OR TWO ANSWERS.
- Post a follow up with a "Thank you" or "This worked!"
- When you learn something, use that knowledge to HELP ANOTHER USER LATER.
Before posting, please read https://www.cgsecurity.org/testdisk.pdf
Post Reply
Message
Author
wazoo42
Posts: 1
Joined: Today, 05:19

Recovering linux RAID 1 partitions + files on 1 TB drive requires more than 3.6 TB

#1 Post by wazoo42 »

I have a number of old drives (WDC Black 1 TB sata HDD) that had between 2 and 5 RAID 1 partitions on them (EXT4 or XFS). Each RAID 1 setup had either 2 or 3 drives mirrored and I tried using testdisk on Rocky Linux 10 to save the files. Running the Quick Search works well and lots of recognizable files and folders turn up. When I go to save a partition that is about 600 GB I run out of space on the drive to which I transfer the data. I tried a single 2 TB drive, and when that ran out of space I used 4 of the 1 TB drives in RAID 0 to create a 3.6 TB partition. Once again, trying to copy these files from the 600 GB partition completely filled up the 3.6 TB RAID 0 array after 24-30 hours. How do I go about recovering these partitions and files without resorting to exceedingly large drives?
recuperation
Posts: 3190
Joined: 04 Jan 2019, 09:48
Location: Hannover, Deutschland (Germany, Allemagne)

Re: Recovering linux RAID 1 partitions + files on 1 TB drive requires more than 3.6 TB

#2 Post by recuperation »

Please post your log file.
Quick search is searching for partitions not for files and folders.
Please explain what you mean when you say "a lot of files and folders turn up".
Did you use TestDisk or PhotoRec?
Try to be specific so that a third person can understand what you did exactly.
Running the Quick Search works well
I don't know what "works well" means.
Post Reply