Re: [Bug-ddrescue] Disc or partition?

[David P James]

On Thu 3 August 2006 13:06, Ariel wrote:

> You wrote that fdisk can't read the partition table, yet you mention
> hdb1 and hdb5?

I know the partition structure from memory (one primary and one logical 
in extended), not from fdisk, which cannot read what I know to [have] 
be[en] there. I hope that clears that up.

...
> However, if linux can't read the partition table of hdb, then you
> have no choice, but to copy the entire disk. Then later run a tool
> that will attempt to rescue your partition, by searching the disk for
> 'start of filesystem'.

Linux cannot read the partition table at all of hdb (only 'hdb' shows up 
in cat /proc/partitions and that's giving funny numbers, the equivalent 
of something like 137 GB total). Now this gets back to my question - 
should the new disk be partitioned (sorry about my poor spelling 
earlier - looks like I dropped the 2nd 'ti' a few times...) and 
formatted, so that a copy is being made into a partition on the new 
disk, or should the new disk be left blank and the creation of 
partitions to be handled (hopefully) by a rescue tool after the fact?

ie should it be:
ddrescue [options] /dev/hdb /dev/hdc1 rescue.log
or
ddrescue [options] /dev/hdb /dev/hdc rescue.log ?

I suspect the data on the disk may be completely unrecoverable but I'd 
like to rule it out completely before doing a partial restore from an 8 
month old image (of C: drive only).

Thanks
-- 
David P James
Calgary, Alberta
http://david.jamesnet.ca
ICQ: #42891899, Jabber: address@hidden

pgpFcDjzzikHq.pgp
Description: PGP signature