LinuxQuestions.org
Review your favorite Linux distribution.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Software
User Name
Password
Linux - Software This forum is for Software issues.
Having a problem installing a new program? Want to know which application is best for the job? Post your question in this forum.

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 05-03-2015, 07:54 PM   #76
rknichols
Senior Member
 
Registered: Aug 2009
Distribution: Rocky Linux
Posts: 4,786

Rep: Reputation: 2216Reputation: 2216Reputation: 2216Reputation: 2216Reputation: 2216Reputation: 2216Reputation: 2216Reputation: 2216Reputation: 2216Reputation: 2216Reputation: 2216

Alas, there is nothing to suggest that there was ever the start of a filesystem there, or anything else that I can recognize. It doesn't look like the result of something wiping that area either, so I don't know what else might have gone on to cause that.

"Migrate Selected Extent(s)" refers to moving all or part of an LV from one PV to another. That's not something you want to be fooling with when things are already broken. Now if you think that might have been something you did before when you were rearranging your storage, that might explain things, but would also greatly complicate recovery.

One final thing to try would be to run testdisk on just /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol02, tell it that there is no partition table, and let it try to find valid backup super blocks from the ext3 filesystem. It wouldn't have detected those when it was looking at just the one disk because it would see that the start of the filesystem couldn't have been on that disk. You'll need to start testdisk from the command line and include /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol02 as an argument. It won't show that as a candidate device otherwise.
 
Old 05-04-2015, 02:41 AM   #77
vpp
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2015
Posts: 62

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: Disabled
I started Testdisk. Analysis takes some time. The first comment it threw was "Partition sector doesn't have the endmark 0xAA55".
 
Old 05-04-2015, 07:49 AM   #78
vpp
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2015
Posts: 62

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Testdisk status

Current status:
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Testdisk@15:46EETDST.png
Views:	20
Size:	50.4 KB
ID:	18351  
 
Old 05-04-2015, 08:09 AM   #79
vpp
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2015
Posts: 62

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: Disabled
This time Testdisk takes a lot more time to complete. I suppose this means it has found something to study closer.
 
Old 05-04-2015, 08:56 AM   #80
rknichols
Senior Member
 
Registered: Aug 2009
Distribution: Rocky Linux
Posts: 4,786

Rep: Reputation: 2216Reputation: 2216Reputation: 2216Reputation: 2216Reputation: 2216Reputation: 2216Reputation: 2216Reputation: 2216Reputation: 2216Reputation: 2216Reputation: 2216
Quote:
Originally Posted by vpp View Post
I started Testdisk. Analysis takes some time. The first comment it threw was "Partition sector doesn't have the endmark 0xAA55".
Strange. Did you not select "None" for the partition table type? It should have defaulted to that.
 
Old 05-04-2015, 09:27 AM   #81
vpp
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2015
Posts: 62

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Shall I stop this run and try again? I cannot recall if it asked partition type...
 
Old 05-04-2015, 09:33 AM   #82
vpp
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2015
Posts: 62

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: Disabled
I stopped it and this was the last screen:

I will start it again by paying attention if it asks something about partition.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Testdisk@stopping.png
Views:	15
Size:	33.7 KB
ID:	18352  
 
Old 05-04-2015, 09:36 AM   #83
vpp
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2015
Posts: 62

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Ok, I didn't pay attention to it, because the program warned about selecting "None", while defaulting to "Intel". Now started again with selection "None".
 
Old 05-04-2015, 09:47 AM   #84
rknichols
Senior Member
 
Registered: Aug 2009
Distribution: Rocky Linux
Posts: 4,786

Rep: Reputation: 2216Reputation: 2216Reputation: 2216Reputation: 2216Reputation: 2216Reputation: 2216Reputation: 2216Reputation: 2216Reputation: 2216Reputation: 2216Reputation: 2216
I notice the line at the very bottom of that screen, "EXT3 Large file Sparse superblock Backup superblock, 2000GB / 1863 GiB". That is very promising. You might be able to recover something by running "e2fsck /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol02", but you really should be doing that on an image of that LV written to another disk. The changes done by fsck will make the filesystem structure consistent, but that can be very much at the expense of the data. For example, you could end up with all of the files moved to lost+found with their original names lost and replaced by names derived from their inode numbers.

You can safely try e2fsck with the "-n" option just to see what it would do if allowed.
 
Old 05-04-2015, 09:49 AM   #85
vpp
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2015
Posts: 62

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Testdisk proceeds still pretty slowly. Now after a few minutes' run it shows like this:
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Testdisk@start_with_None.png
Views:	18
Size:	30.2 KB
ID:	18353  
 
Old 05-04-2015, 09:56 AM   #86
vpp
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2015
Posts: 62

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: Disabled
So is it worth running this analysis till completion?

I considered that option for e2fsck too when the SATA disk was outside of LVM, but this disk/partition is bigger than any other disk I have. I cannot fit the image anywhere.
 
Old 05-04-2015, 10:04 AM   #87
rknichols
Senior Member
 
Registered: Aug 2009
Distribution: Rocky Linux
Posts: 4,786

Rep: Reputation: 2216Reputation: 2216Reputation: 2216Reputation: 2216Reputation: 2216Reputation: 2216Reputation: 2216Reputation: 2216Reputation: 2216Reputation: 2216Reputation: 2216
I would let testdisk run, and see what it offers to do. I don't have any experience with testdisk recovering filesystems, but it supposedly has some capability in that regard.

If I were in your position, I'd be getting another 2TB disk to hold a copy rather than risking my data. But, that's up to you.
 
Old 05-04-2015, 10:07 AM   #88
vpp
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2015
Posts: 62

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Yes, that's an option I have been pondering. I guess this run will be ready some time tomorrow...
 
Old 05-04-2015, 11:05 AM   #89
rknichols
Senior Member
 
Registered: Aug 2009
Distribution: Rocky Linux
Posts: 4,786

Rep: Reputation: 2216Reputation: 2216Reputation: 2216Reputation: 2216Reputation: 2216Reputation: 2216Reputation: 2216Reputation: 2216Reputation: 2216Reputation: 2216Reputation: 2216
It looks like there is little point in letting testdisk run. I did a test by zeroing out the first 32MB of an 8GB filesystem, and testdisk just suggests running e2fsck to reconstruct the super block from a backup super block. With that much of the filesystem overwritten, the root directory was clobbered, and testdisk couldn't do much else. 32MB is what was in the overwritten segment on your small disk.

I did run e2fsck on that damaged filesystem, letting it fix all the problems it found, and it was able to recover all but the top-level directory. What had been "home/rnichols" was now "lost+found/#393217/rnichols". Below that, almost everything was still intact -- a few missing files, some files damaged, but most were OK. I did lose the original names (there was just one, "home") for everything in that top level directory.

I still don't recommend doing that without a backup copy.

Last edited by rknichols; 05-04-2015 at 11:06 AM.
 
Old 05-04-2015, 01:23 PM   #90
vpp
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2015
Posts: 62

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: Disabled
I think I can live with the result of a fair recovery attempt, whatever the result is. I would just like to do it correctly.
How does the correct command look like? Shall I use just the LVM PV or shall I add one of the suggested backup super blocks?

I tried the -n option (but without -b) and seems there's a lot to fix. Eventually that test ended with a segmentation fault!
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LVM issue circus78 Linux - Server 5 12-12-2014 01:32 AM
LVM issue call_krushna Linux - Virtualization and Cloud 0 10-30-2012 10:58 AM
LVM issue AndyD236 Linux - General 2 11-24-2009 07:26 AM
LVM Issue bondoq Linux - General 8 05-12-2009 09:35 AM
LVM issue pauloco Linux - Hardware 1 11-14-2006 11:13 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Software

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:11 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration