Partition showing as RAW

[abernut]

So I came into work this morning and the Q partition on my SQL server was not accessible.

When I open it in Disk Management, it shows online and RAW.

Using TestDisk I am able to access all the data and I am currently in the process of backing up my mdf, ldf, and .bak files.

There is still a ton of configuration files on this partition (I had multiple network programs installed here) So it would be awesome if I could just fix it. But just to be safe I am backing everything up before I attempt any sort of fix.

I am new to TestDisk.

1. Is there anything else other than the files I should be backing up before I attempt to fix what ever is wrong.

2. How exactly do I fix it with testdisk, do I just click "Write"

[allen2]

Yes write should do the trick but you might want to do additional steps:

- before doing write with testdisk, you should create disk image as explained there by Jaclaz.

- do the write with testdisk

- do a chkdsk /F or if you have more time /R of the partition.

[abernut]

Write did not work.

After reboot Windows still shows the drive as RAW.

I can still access all the files via TestDisk (thank God)

Where is the article by Jaclaz on creating a disk image?

Thanks,

Mike

[jaclaz]

Write did not work.

After reboot Windows still shows the drive as RAW.

I can still access all the files via TestDisk (thank God)

Where is the article by Jaclaz on creating a disk image?

Thanks,

Mike

We are doing something very similar right now here:

From the screenshot you posted, you are NOT having a "partition table" issue, so "write" will simply write the SAME (already valid) values (no difference).

What you should check, like on the mentioned thread, is the bootsector or PBR/VBR of the parition/volume, either manually or following this:

http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/Advanced_NTFS_Boot_and_MFT_Repair#Rebuilding_An_NTFS_Boot_Sector_On_An_NTFS_Partition

Recovering An NTFS Boot Sector On An NTFS Partition Using Its Backup

jaclaz

[abernut]

what are the chances of me loosing the data I have not backed up?

There is still an .LDF file that I have not finished backing up yet, 250GB.

But at the rate it is copying, I might be sitting here for another 12 hours.

Is there anywhere we can pay for additional support. I would hate to make things worse that an expert might be able to fix.

Thanks

Mike

[abernut]

Does it matter that the partition in question is a RAID 5

[jaclaz]

what are the chances of me loosing the data I have not backed up?

There is still an .LDF file that I have not finished backing up yet, 250GB.

But at the rate it is copying, I might be sitting here for another 12 hours.

That is strange (250 GB in 12 hours is SLOW).

A "normal" imaging/copying rate on modern hardware is usually above 20 Mb/s, i.e. around 120 Gb/h.

HOW (through which means) are you doing the copy?

If you are not using an extremely slow connection/bus (maybe you are doing it through the lan/network?) it could be a sign of possible issues.

Normally there is no risk to lose data, but if not otherwise justified it may mean a sign of some issues with the actual disk(s).

Is there anywhere we can pay for additional support. I would hate to make things worse that an expert might be able to fix.

Naaah, we do it for the glory .

But of course, you would be very welcome (of you want/can afford it) to contribute to the "forum bandwidth/hosting/etc. costs):

http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?app=donate&do=setup_donation

(though appreciated you won't have a "better" treatment, though )

Does it matter that the partition in question is a RAID 5

No, if it is - as I presume - a "hardware RAID".

Should it be a "software" one, it may .

jaclaz

[abernut]

The boot sector test does not show any errors.

[abernut]

A "normal" imaging/copying rate on modern hardware is usually above 20 Mb/s, i.e. around 120 Gb/h.

HOW (through which means) are you doing the copy?

A USB drive plugged directly into the server.

[jaclaz]

A USB drive plugged directly into the server.

Strange.

Maybe it is a USB 1.1 port?

The difference would be bigger, I think, as 480/12=40

It is very possible that the "progress bar" or "remaining time" (or whatever) of the *whatever* copying app you are using is inaccurate, like:

http://windows7professional.wordpress.com/2010/01/06/windows-8-lets-fix-time-remaining-on-file-copy-once-and-for-all-it-is-about-bloody-time/

The boot sector test does not show any errors.

Also strange.

Once you have finished the image/copy of the file, do post the MBR and VBR, as per the other thread, you can use Hdhacker for this.

jaclaz

Edited July 19, 2012 by jaclaz