The entire disk; Should I re-try the ddrescue with the slice only? As I just sent to the list: [root at server /]# mount_ntfs -o loop /mount/archive/da-harddrive/80gb.drive /mount/drive1 mount_ntfs: -o loop: option not supported On Apr 13, 2010, at 10:48 AM, Sunny wrote: > On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Ryan Coleman <ryanjcole at me.com> wrote: >> I trust that it was not dropped - the device does not make any abnormal >> noises that would lead me to believe that is the case. It spins up >> normally... >> I have the image made ... > > Did you make an image of the partition, or the disk itself? > >> [root at server /mount/archive/da-harddrive]# ls -la >> total 78188872 >> -rw-r--r-- 1 ryan wheel 80026361856 Apr 13 03:46 80gb.drive >> -rw-r--r-- 1 ryan wheel 425 Apr 13 03:46 80gb.log >> When I try to mount that with mount_ntfs I get the following (expected) >> error: >> mount_ntfs: /mount/archive/da-harddrive/80gb.drive: Block device required >> Is there a way to fake the Block device? I also tried just now to mount the > > If your image is of the partition, did you used -o loop as mounting option? > >> physical partition with the fusefs NTFS port and got the following response: >> [root at server /mount/archive/da-harddrive]# ntfs-3g /dev/da0 /mount/drive1 >> NTFS signature is missing. >> Failed to mount '/dev/da0': Invalid argument >> The device '/dev/da0' doesn't seem to have a valid NTFS. >> Maybe the wrong device is used? Or the whole disk instead of a >> partition (e.g. /dev/sda, not /dev/sda1)? Or the other way around? >> I'm still planning on testing out TestDisk. >> On Apr 13, 2010, at 10:20 AM, Justin Kremer wrote: >> >> Just a couple comments from a couple similar experiences I had... >> The first is to figure out the mode of failure of the drive. >> Is it from a laptop that was dropped during use? Is it a drive that >> is having sectors go bad? Did someone do something silly and start >> writing zeros to the wrong device? (not that I've ever done that...) >> Different modes of failure may require different tactics, and can also >> have very different results. >> >> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Ryan Coleman <ryanjcole at me.com> wrote: >> >> I was given leads to using ddrescue and dd but frankly that is outside of my >> >> realm of knowledge and 9 of the 10 NTFS partitions that refused to mount in >> >> Windows have mounted so far in FreeBSD (I'm running 8.0). >> >> ddrescue might be VERY useful in this situation. If you're not >> familiar, it is basically dd, but it is forced to keep reading (and >> writing) on when it encounters bad blocks. Some of the files will end >> up corrupt in the disk image you create, but if you are fortunate, the >> lion's share will be there. >> You just want to start with the failed drive readable to you, and with >> a location you can write the output file to with more space available >> than the size of the partition you are trying to recover. >> Both dd and ddrescue use similar syntax. As I recall there is a >> slight difference, but starting with the basics, you should be able to >> figure out the rest... >> I think the command I used was: dd if=(path of the device name for the >> partition to be recovered) of=(path of the file name to create from >> the partition) >> Certain other flags may be necessary, and ddrescue may be the >> preferable command. The less times you have to try the better. If >> the drive's condition is getting worse with use, you want to use it >> less if possible! >> I would expect it to take a LONG time. >> Once the process is complete, you can try to mount the output file as >> a loopback filesystem. (under Linux, I believe the flag is "-o loop") >> If you're able to mount it, you should be able to copy any important >> files off of it and then weed out what is intact and what is corrupt >> without dealing with i/o errors in the middle of trying to copy a >> batch of files. >> >> The drive is presently connected via USB on a SATA sled. >> >> I know that there's something to be had on there somewhere: >> >> Personally, I would try to use the most direct connection possible. >> SATA direct to the motherboard first. Maybe it's just my dislike for >> middlemen... >> - Justin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.mn-linux.org/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20100413/bbe73526/attachment.htm