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 ... [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 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 > > _______________________________________________ > TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota > tclug-list at mn-linux.org > http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.mn-linux.org/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20100413/391642c4/attachment.htm