0

I suspect someone at the company decided to do a partition span, i.e.:

(taken a look from Linux Debian 9)

Drive #1:

Disk /dev/sdc: 465.8 GiB, 500107862016 bytes, 976773168 sectors
Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
Disklabel type: dos
Disk identifier: 0x11722464

Device     Boot      Start        End    Sectors  Size Id Type
/dev/sdc1  *          2048     206847     204800  100M  7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT
/dev/sdc2           206848 1952612351 1952405504  931G  7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT
/dev/sdc3       1952612352 1953533951     921600  450M 27 Hidden NTFS WinRE

Drive #2:

Disk /dev/sdd: 465.8 GiB, 500107862016 bytes, 976773168 sectors
Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes

As you can see for yourself, both of the hard drives are 500 GB in size.

At the same time, look at the size of the partition /dev/sdc2, it's double the size of of the drive.


I tried:

# ldmtool create all
[
]

no result here.


I am fairly familiar with Windows 10, but not spanned disks or partitions.


The original computer died. Beyond repair, I am quite sure if there really is a spanned partition, the person who set it up does not work here anymore and declined to help us in this matter.


Both of the drives spin-up fast and without a problem, so I really think this should be software matter.


From what I gather, a Windows 10, an upgrade from Windows 7 has been installed on it.


We bought a new PC with Windows 10 and plugged in those drives in hope it would auto-detect the spanned partition, but the Windows drive manager prompts me to initiate the second (seen from Linux as non-formatted) drive.


Any clues and hints from users experienced with spanned volumes will be appreciated.


EDIT 1:

After installation of dmraid and reboot of the Linux server, I see in addition to the above:

Disk /dev/mapper/isw_cffbdajifj_Volume0: 931.5 GiB, 1000210694144 bytes, 1953536512 sectors
Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 131072 bytes / 262144 bytes
Disklabel type: dos
Disk identifier: 0x11722464

Device                                   Boot      Start        End    Sectors  Size Id Type
/dev/mapper/isw_cffbdajifj_Volume0-part1 *          2048     206847     204800  100M  7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT
/dev/mapper/isw_cffbdajifj_Volume0-part2          206848 1952612351 1952405504  931G  7 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT
/dev/mapper/isw_cffbdajifj_Volume0-part3      1952612352 1953533951     921600  450M 27 Hidden NTFS WinRE


Disk /dev/mapper/isw_cffbdajifj_Volume01: 100 MiB, 104857600 bytes, 204800 sectors
Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 131072 bytes / 262144 bytes
Disklabel type: dos
Disk identifier: 0x73736572

Device                                    Boot      Start        End    Sectors   Size Id Type
/dev/mapper/isw_cffbdajifj_Volume01-part1      1920221984 3736432267 1816210284   866G 72 unknown
/dev/mapper/isw_cffbdajifj_Volume01-part2      1936028192 3889681299 1953653108 931.6G 6c unknown
/dev/mapper/isw_cffbdajifj_Volume01-part3               0          0          0     0B  0 Empty
/dev/mapper/isw_cffbdajifj_Volume01-part4        27722122   27722568        447 223.5K  0 Empty

Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary.
Partition 2 does not start on physical sector boundary.
Partition 4 does not start on physical sector boundary.
Partition table entries are not in disk order.


Disk /dev/mapper/isw_cffbdajifj_Volume02: 931 GiB, 999631618048 bytes, 1952405504 sectors
Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 131072 bytes / 262144 bytes
Disklabel type: dos
Disk identifier: 0x6a205247

Device                                    Boot      Start        End    Sectors   Size Id Type
/dev/mapper/isw_cffbdajifj_Volume02-part1         7250038 1707125378 1699875341 810.6G 72 unknown
/dev/mapper/isw_cffbdajifj_Volume02-part2      1818959973 3754989316 1936029344 923.2G 74 unknown
/dev/mapper/isw_cffbdajifj_Volume02-part3      1953251627 3771827541 1818575915 867.2G 43 unknown
/dev/mapper/isw_cffbdajifj_Volume02-part4      2693529610 2693581498      51889  25.3M 61 SpeedStor

Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary.
Partition 2 does not start on physical sector boundary.
Partition 3 does not start on physical sector boundary.
Partition 4 does not start on physical sector boundary.


Disk /dev/mapper/isw_cffbdajifj_Volume03: 450 MiB, 471859200 bytes, 921600 sectors
Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 131072 bytes / 262144 bytes
Disklabel type: dos
Disk identifier: 0x73736572

Device                                    Boot      Start        End    Sectors   Size Id Type
/dev/mapper/isw_cffbdajifj_Volume03-part1      1920221984 3736432267 1816210284   866G 72 unknown
/dev/mapper/isw_cffbdajifj_Volume03-part2      1936028192 3889681299 1953653108 931.6G 6c unknown
/dev/mapper/isw_cffbdajifj_Volume03-part3               0          0          0     0B  0 Empty
/dev/mapper/isw_cffbdajifj_Volume03-part4        27722122   27722568        447 223.5K  0 Empty

Partition 1 does not start on physical sector boundary.
Partition 2 does not start on physical sector boundary.
Partition 4 does not start on physical sector boundary.
Partition table entries are not in disk order.

EDIT 2:

My suspicion was wrong about the spanned partition or drive.

It is actually a Fake RAID 0 as discovered with the help of dmraid.

Vlastimil Burián
  • 4,075
  • 11
  • 44
  • 69
  • 2
    This answer of mine, section 2: JBOD. After concatenating mount read-only and make sure JBOD is in fact the right setup. RAID0 may give the same partition tables you observed; if you suspect RAID0, proceed according to section 3. – Kamil Maciorowski Aug 31 '18 at 09:40
  • So what happens when you try to mount /dev/mapper/isw_cffbdajifj_Volume02 now? Mount read-only first and investigate the result. – Kamil Maciorowski Sep 01 '18 at 08:10
  • You write an answer. Apparently dmraid read some metadata and knew what to do; my approach with dmsetup probably wouldn't work. The size of the resulting volume (Volume0) is less than the sum of your disks (these be equal with naive dmsetup). Yes, you can take an image of Volume0, this should save useful data (I guess RAID medadata will be lost, no longer needed though) and behave like full disk image, with partitions accessible with e.g. kpartx or mountable with mount -o offset=…. – Kamil Maciorowski Sep 01 '18 at 08:40

0 Answers0