Иван Омельченко wrote: > Initially, I used the default Windows Explorer formatting menu. > So, this is for a working state (block size 16KiB): > > fs@fs-hpc:~$ sudo ntfsinfo -m /dev/sdb1 > Volume Information > Name of device: /dev/sdb1
[...] > Free Clusters: 5340244 (22,3%) > > fs@fs-hpc:~$ sudo head -c 80 /dev/sda1 | od -t x1 > 0000000 eb 58 90 4d 53 57 49 4e 34 2e 31 00 02 08 2a 00 This is sda1, not sdb1. No problem anyway, all I need was in the ntfsinfo data. [...] > > And this when I have changed block size back to 32KiB using Acronis (so > all my files are saved): Do you mean Acronis can change the cluster size "in-place", without reformatting and restoring from a backup ? > > fs@fs-hpc ~> sudo mount -t ntfs-3g /dev/sdb1 /mnt/data > ntfs_mst_post_read_fixup_warn: magic: 0x44414142 size: 1024 > usa_ofs: 0 usa_count: 0: Invalid argument This probably means that either the MFT or an index was fetched from a wrong location. No idea why. [...] > $MFTMirr does not match $MFT (record 16). This probably means the partition was mounted by Windows 10 and chkdsk was not applied (but there may be other reasons). [...] > > fs@fs-hpc:~$ sudo head -c 80 /dev/sdb1 | od -t x1 > 0000000 eb 52 90 4e 54 46 53 20 20 20 20 00 02 40 00 00 > 0000020 00 00 00 00 00 f8 00 00 3f 00 ff 00 3f 00 00 00 > 0000040 00 00 00 00 80 00 80 00 c0 57 aa 2d 00 00 00 00 > 0000060 8e 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 57 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 > 0000100 f6 00 00 00 f6 00 00 00 60 8d af ef 95 de d4 01 > 0000120 I see nothing wrong there, so I am surprised that the index block size was defined as 1024 (same as with the original 16K clusters). To get further, I would need the beginning of the MFT, at least 8 entries, or 32 sectors. The MFT starts at cluster 142, which is sector 9088 with 32K clusters. For instance : dd if=/dev/sdb1 bs=512 skip=9088 count=32 | od -t x1 This will output 512 lines which you can post to the list. Later, I will probably need the root index (when I know where it is located). > > The drive works fine, windows chkdsk sees no errors. > Also, need to say that I have a slightly unnormal partition scheme: the > first 100GiB is unallocated (intended as for future experiments), then > the actual partition and then some 1MiB unallocated. The partition is however recorded to start at sector 63, but this is ignored by ntfs-3g. Is the size of the file system consistent with the partition table (a bit over 766138304 sectors) ? Jean-Pierre _______________________________________________ ntfs-3g-devel mailing list ntfs-3g-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ntfs-3g-devel
