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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgpVOLRDt2AJq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Bug-ddrescue mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-ddrescue
