-2

I had 2 drives corrupted and now replaced with new ones sitting on RAID 0. After installing the new drives I have attached the 2 old corrupted drives via usb to retrieve data from them. These 2 drives are build RAID 0 and using LVM, the server recognizing both drives now but ind

Disk /dev/sdd: 500.1 GB, 500107862016 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 60801 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
Disk identifier: 0x5527e79b
Device Boot      Start         End      Blocks   Id  System
/dev/sdd1               1      121470   975698944   8e  Linux LVM

Disk /dev/sdc: 500.1 GB, 500107862016 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 60801 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
Disk identifier: 0x1f0bbe1f
Device Boot      Start         End      Blocks   Id  System
/dev/sdc1               1       60802   488383488    7  HPFS/NTFS

I'm trying to mount the drives but it's not working

mount /dev/sdc1 /mnt/sdc1 -t ntfs
NTFS signature is missing.
Failed to mount '/dev/sdc1': Invalid argument
The device '/dev/sdc1' 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?

mount /dev/sdd1 /mnt/sdd1
mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/sdd1,
missing codepage or helper program, or other error
In some cases useful info is found in syslog - try
dmesg | tail  or so

dmesg | tail -l
EXT4-fs (sdd1): bad geometry: block count 157286400 exceeds size of device (122096390 blocks)

Is there a way to mount these 2 drives without losing data and override RAID or LVM configuration?

I found this example: https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/115698/fix-ext4-fs-bad-geometry-block-count-exceeds-size-of-device

sfdisk -d /dev/sdx >sdx.txt
cat sdx.txt
sfdisk /dev/sdx <sdx.txt

Would this help?

My output is

# partition table of /dev/sdd
unit: sectors
/dev/sdd1 : start=     2048, size=1951397888, Id=8e
/dev/sdd2 : start=        0, size=        0, Id= 0
/dev/sdd3 : start=        0, size=        0, Id= 0
/dev/sdd4 : start=        0, size=        0, Id= 0

1 Answer 1

1

RAID0 is not RAID... (meaning not redundant) RAID0 is simply a way of using two disks for drastically increased performance. It does not, however, allow you to recover from a failed drive. If one or both have been corrupted... you probably won't be able to mount them until the corruption is fixed (if possible). If you are able to read from the disks... you may try re-assembling the RAID manually using the mdadm utility.

8
  • thanks for the info but I can read both drives but can't mount them. I found this example sfdisk -d /dev/sdx >sdx.txt cat sdx.txt sfdisk /dev/sdx <sdx.txt you think this might help?
    – WiTon Nope
    Dec 4, 2015 at 4:20
  • The drives do not contain a file-system. They are part of a RAID which when combined contains a file-system. You must first assemble the RAID from the disks... and then you mount the MD device.
    – TheCompWiz
    Dec 4, 2015 at 4:23
  • can you advise me please how to assemble RAID wihout losing data?
    – WiTon Nope
    Dec 4, 2015 at 4:24
  • Your data is gone. Restore it from your backups. Or, if you want to pay large sums of money, send the drives to a professional data recovery firm and there's a small chance they'll be able to restore some of your data.
    – EEAA
    Dec 4, 2015 at 4:25
  • Just based on the output from fdisk... it is showing the type as HPFS/NTFS which is a horrible sign. This probably means your data is already lost. There are forensic tools that might be able to carve a usable image from your sdc... and possibly recover something... but this is highly unlikely. If the data was important, you should never have used RAID0.
    – TheCompWiz
    Dec 4, 2015 at 4:33

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.