LinuxQuestions.org
Share your knowledge at the LQ Wiki.
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 02-22-2005, 11:57 PM   #1
Ignacio
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Feb 2005
Posts: 14

Rep: Reputation: 0
Suse 9.2 Screwed The Pooch


OK, well I finally figured why I can no longer see my NTFS RAID array. It appears the new Suse Pro 9.2 installation decided the unpartitioned drive I put in for Linux wasn't good enough and decided to partition my NTFS formatted RAID instead.

I hadn't realize this because I had once installed Suse 8.2 Personal Edition onthis same system and it was far more respectful of such things and merely installed itself on the unpartitioned drive I had put in for it.

Reinstalling 9.2, I noticed that it wanted to partition SDA instead of HDA, telling me I already had an installation, no less.

I can't believe this installation did this. I'm at a loss as to why it decided to install itself on a formatted drive when it clearly sees an unpartition one. It really pisses me off.

So is it safe to say that NTFS data is gone for good, or is there any way I may be able to salvage whatever data wasn't written over?
 
Old 02-23-2005, 12:21 AM   #2
Saquear
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Posts: 56

Rep: Reputation: 15
Suse 9.2 Screwed The Pooch

Ignacio, Try Acronis at Acronis .com. Check it out first before you buy, I think they have a free download for 30 days.Saquear
 
Old 02-23-2005, 12:24 AM   #3
NeRMaTriX
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Feb 2005
Distribution: SuSE
Posts: 10

Rep: Reputation: 0
Ohh sounds like U got bit bad... There have been lots of bad things being said about SuSE 9.2 Unfortunatly you found one of them... I'm not sure what salvage there is possible because of the nature of the raid (stripped I assume) your data is spread over multiple drives so your screwed if you wanna save it cause you'll just get bits and pieces of data...

THE ONLY thing I can say for sure... is that SuSE 9.2 should be watched very carefully on install... Myself... I backed up all my data... cleared my dual booted xp/linux hd.... and installed SuSE first... Then Got Lilo... and installed XP for my dual boot.

Sorry to hear and good luck


- NeRMaTriX







P.S. If your server was set up in a Mirrored array however you should be able to save whichever drive was not taken over by SuSE. But yeah if you striped ur array... Ur pretty much screwed...
 
Old 02-23-2005, 12:39 AM   #4
Ignacio
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Feb 2005
Posts: 14

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 0
Yeah, I believe Acronis only works if you've ALREADY created a disk image. This is obviously not the case here. I think the only option I may have is to bring it to one of those overpriced data recovery services.

Unfortunately I don't have the resources to back up 220 gigs of storage, otherwise I'd consider that. Still, I didn't think anything of it because I had already installed 8.2 on this same system and it never did anything so obnoxious. What the F*@k was Suse thinking when they decided to create this installation system for 9.2?
 
Old 02-23-2005, 12:48 AM   #5
JSpired
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2003
Distribution: Slackware, Suse 9.2
Posts: 565

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally posted by Ignacio
What the F*@k was Suse thinking when they decided to create this installation system for 9.2?
I'm confused by this because SuSE asks you if you're sure you want to proceed. Are you saying that you didn't notice which drive was being formatted or that it did two drives when you only specified one?
 
Old 02-23-2005, 01:12 AM   #6
Ignacio
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Feb 2005
Posts: 14

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 0
>>I'm confused by this because SuSE asks you if you're sure you want to proceed. Are you saying that you didn't notice which drive was being formatted or that it did two drives when you only specified one?<<

To a degree. Although ultimately this is my own fault, I assumed the installer would know better than to install itself on a formatted secondary instead of an unpartitioned and unformatted primary. The reason I assumed this was because, as I mentioned earlier, I had installed Suse 8.2 a while back on this very system and it did exactly this. It did not touch the NTFS RAID volume and installed itself on the unformatted and unpartitioned primary Iput in the system for it. Makes sense, doesn't it?

I would really like to know why now Suse decided, in light of the obvious, to install itself on the formatted secondary instead of the unformatted and unpartitioned primary I deliberately put in the system for it. What kind of stupidity is that? You know, I could blame myself completely if it weren't for the 8.2 install, but despite my own ignorance in my assumptions I cannot excuse this mentality on Suse's part as well. What the F*@K were they thinking?

Last edited by Ignacio; 02-23-2005 at 01:14 AM.
 
Old 02-23-2005, 02:04 AM   #7
pevelius
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Tampere, Finland
Distribution: Debian, Familiar, OS X
Posts: 145

Rep: Reputation: 16
maybe you could ask them?
 
Old 02-23-2005, 03:40 PM   #8
Ignacio
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Feb 2005
Posts: 14

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 0
>>maybe you could ask them?<<

I already fired off a message to them, as I have 60-day support by buying the commercial package. Some support! I haven't heard from them yet!
 
Old 02-23-2005, 09:18 PM   #9
NeRMaTriX
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Feb 2005
Distribution: SuSE
Posts: 10

Rep: Reputation: 0
Yeah... well Novell kinda f#$%$d up and has now turned into Microsoft...

Good luck gettin a reply that carries merrit.

BTW... Blue Screens of Death are imminent in future versions of SuSE...

Do I sound jadded... naw...

I'm checkin out Mandrake and Xandros... Highly recommend U people with SuSE problems do the same.



- NeRMaTriX




 
Old 02-23-2005, 09:55 PM   #10
JSpired
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2003
Distribution: Slackware, Suse 9.2
Posts: 565

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally posted by NeRMaTriX
Yeah... well Novell kinda f#$%$d up and has now turned into Microsoft...

Good luck gettin a reply that carries merrit.

BTW... Blue Screens of Death are imminent in future versions of SuSE...

Do I sound jadded... naw...

I'm checkin out Mandrake and Xandros... Highly recommend U people with SuSE problems do the same.



- NeRMaTriX




Care to say more because by itself..this is just an unwarranted flame.
 
Old 02-23-2005, 10:35 PM   #11
mcleodnine
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2001
Location: Left Coast - Canada
Distribution: s l a c k w a r e
Posts: 2,731

Rep: Reputation: 45
Re: Suse 9.2 Screwed The Pooch

Quote:
Originally posted by Ignacio
OK, well I finally figured why I can no longer see my NTFS RAID array. It appears the new Suse Pro 9.2 installation decided the unpartitioned drive I put in for Linux wasn't good enough and decided to partition my NTFS formatted RAID instead.

<snipped>

So is it safe to say that NTFS data is gone for good, or is there any way I may be able to salvage whatever data wasn't written over?
What kind of RAID were you running on the NTFS partitions? If you have some degree of redundancy and you only wiped out one member of the array you should be able to make a recovery. How you recover will depend on whether you're using one of those faux-RAID device seen on motherboards and entry-level RAID cards, or software RAID in W2K/XP.
 
Old 02-23-2005, 10:53 PM   #12
Ignacio
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Feb 2005
Posts: 14

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 0
>>What kind of RAID were you running on the NTFS partitions?<<

No, it's a RAID 0 array controlled by a 3ware 7410 card handling a pair of WD 120 gig drives. I've contacted two software companies about whether their data retreival software might be able to salvage whatever wasn't written over by the install, but at this point I've pretty much written this stuff off.
 
Old 02-23-2005, 11:11 PM   #13
mcleodnine
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2001
Location: Left Coast - Canada
Distribution: s l a c k w a r e
Posts: 2,731

Rep: Reputation: 45
Ouch. Well, not to sound like a lecture, but... RAID0 isn't exactly fault-tolerant.

I'm genuinely surprised that SuSE/Novell/NuSE whoever ther are these days, actually decided it was a good idea to do that. In the past the installer was very conservative when selecting partitions and filesystems. Traditionally most distros will attempt the "easiest" install (ie: non hardware RAID, and if it sees a RAID controller would at least try to determine if platters are part of an existing array schema and warn the user), or like slackware, hand you the gun, the ammo, and leave up to the user to load, aim, and shoot themselves in the foot.

While you appear to be out of luck with fixing things (barring any five figure prices for disaster data recovery) you may want to take the time to notify the support people of this issue with a nice note telling them what happened. An installer like that is just plain rude.
 
Old 02-24-2005, 09:59 AM   #14
powerlifter450
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2005
Posts: 57

Rep: Reputation: 15
This almost happened to me also.I used partitionmagic to slice up a new rieser partition.inserted my 9.1 dvd and it trued to cut up the entire hdd for itself.I decided to install mandrake 10 that I'd had once before so I installed that and overwrote it with suse.worked perfectly.
 
Old 02-26-2005, 04:18 AM   #15
techiejunkie
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Feb 2005
Location: drifting in cyberspace
Distribution: suse 9.2
Posts: 2

Rep: Reputation: 0
ironically... when i used the suse 9.2 install i was able to save a windoze partition i thought i had lost... partition magic said it was unallocated space... but in the install in suse, i always double check what it says it's going to do with the partitions and the bootloader... the partitioner saw the lost windoze partition, and when i wrote everything to the mbr, i had my partition back! yay!!! *shrugs* that's why it lists the settings it is going to use to install BEFORE you click "accept"..... maybe i'm just one of those who reads everything before hitting the "next" buttons... :P

wishing you luck in recovering your fs... Smiles...
 
  


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
Suse 9.3 completely screwed speedemonV12 SUSE / openSUSE 19 09-04-2005 03:12 PM
How did I pooch SU? Jukas Linux - Security 3 05-25-2005 03:59 PM
My login window got screwed up on SuSE Thaidog Linux - Newbie 0 09-04-2004 09:28 AM
SuSE - screwed up display linmix Linux - Distributions 4 08-26-2004 04:50 AM
SuSE 9.0 screwed the pooch! mmurch01 Linux - Software 4 04-01-2004 06:38 PM

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

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:16 AM.

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
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration