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
  • 3,887
  • 11
  • 41
  • 65
  • 2
    [This answer of mine](https://superuser.com/a/1340728/432690), 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