Drive Recovery Attempt from LaCie Big Disk

[lbeachmike]

Hey guys -

This recovery appeared successful in Get Data Back at step 3, where I was able to view the full file structure, file sizes, and all details - however, when I copied the files out, none contained the original data. Not a single file. But if the file details are there, I'm guessing that I must be doing something logistically wrong. So here are full details -

1. I have a LaCie Big Disk Extreme that failed in communicating with the drives inside of it intermittently and then finally failed before I could pull the data off. The drives were last seen happy and healthy.

2. I got hold of another comparable LaCie enclosure off of ebay - confirmed it was functional and also RAID 0 and transplanted the drives in the same configuration.

3. I connected the transplant LaCie via USB and found that the two drive partitions coud now be seen, but everything was still unreadable and Windows offered to format the seemingly blank drives.

4. I ran GetDataBack and can see all of the files on the one partition, but whether video or text files, it's all garbled - I tried a decent sample of files and the recovery otherwise indicated no problems.

5. It's noteworthy that the recovery attempt on the second partition appears not to have turned up much at all, but did successfully find and successfully recover an old bookmarks folder backup.

I feel like I'm overlooking something here and that this data appears to be recoverable. Would this be a possible result if the drives were inadvertently reversed in the RAID array from their original configuration or would it find nothing at all?

Suggestions?

Thanks.

Mike

[Midknyte]

Moving the two drives would not carry over the array information that's in the controller card. You can try Raid Reconstructor.

http://www.runtime.org/raid.htm

[lbeachmike]

Ahhh! I'm not familiar with the details of a RAID config -

Even if both enclosures have two drives configured in RAID 0, you cannot simply interchange the drives between enclosures?

If so, why is it able to see all of the files, their sizes and such?

Bottom line - does RAID reconstructor have a high success rate? If I use it, I will need to take both drives out and connect them directly as ATA drives, correct?

Thanks.

[lbeachmike]

Oh! Is it possible that because the drives are different capacity than the other enclosure that this is why the controller's array information would be different?

[Midknyte]

Even if both enclosures have two drives configured in RAID 0, you cannot simply interchange the drives between enclosures?

Yours is a very specialized case, but generally you can't move RAID0 arrays around. Array information is stored in the controller, but you might be able to get away with it since LaCie probably uses a standard configuration.

For RAID Reconstructor, you will have to connect the drives as single drives on a non-RAID controller. This should clarify what you need to do:
http://runtime3.org/blog/?m=200708

I can't really comment on the success rate, since I rarely use it. If you don't like Raid Reconstructor, there are a few other apps that may work. Off the top of my head, I don't know of any free apps that work on RAID0.

http://www.unformat-unerase.com/
http://www.diskinternals.com/raid-recovery/

Now you know why we don't recommend running RAID0. Recovery is much much more complex than with single drives.

[Midknyte]

Oh! Is it possible that because the drives are different capacity than the other enclosure that this is why the controller's array information would be different?

That could be a problem since they might also be using different cluster sizes. The way you said it earlier made me think they were identical.

[lbeachmike]

Okay - my mistake - the drives were indeed the same capacity. However, the model of the enclosure was not identical.

I bought these about six years ago when I had no clue about LaCie or that these contained a pair of drives in RAID 0. I recall actually being surprised to learn that it contained two drives - how far I've come

Unfortunately I've learned the hard way.

Runtime Software said that the enclosure might auto-initialize and thus the drive array structure might be unrecoverable. I don't think LaCie likely built that level of sophistication into their enclosures - do you happen to know? Their support is relatively clueless.

I will give RAID reconstructor a try when I have the opportunity and hopefully report back success.

My burning question is still this one -

If the drives are in a RAID 0 array, does all of the file information and the partition info get stored on only one of the two drives or is it also spread between the two drives? I'm trying to understand how the file data would be in tact.

Thanks.

mrk

[Midknyte]

I don't use LaCie drives, so I can't say. They seem to target the Mac crowd. I usually like to build my own externals, rather than buy OEM.

You could have guessed that there were two drives just by the size of the enclosure, but that's not much help right now.

If the drives are in a RAID 0 array, does all of the file information and the partition info get stored on only one of the two drives or is it also spread between the two drives? I'm trying to understand how the file data would be in tact.

No, they don't store complete files on any one drive. The data is spread between the two drives, depending on the cluster size. If the cluster size is 64k, then first 64k of a file is on one drive, then the next 64k of the file is on the second, and so forth.

If the drives filled up one at a time as you described, that would be disk spanning, not disk striping (RAID0).

We have a few links about RAID in the best of storage sticky. I suggest you check them out to get a better understanding of RAID.

[lbeachmike]

Hey Midknyte - I will read up on RIAD to get a better understanding of the finer details. However, I'm not sure if you understood my question - I perhaps did not articulate it clearly.

I understand that RAID 0 is striping and divides the data between drives and thus is intended to improve access speed.

My question is regarding how that impacts the MFT and the information about the RAID array, such as it's partition information and such. Is that information stored on one drive so as to maintain it's integrity, is it on both drives, or is it also divided between drives?

In other words, my drive recovery recovered nothing useful other than all of the filenames, directory structure, file sizes and file types. If we are saying that we believe my RAID config is compromised in some way, then I'm wondering how that information was successfully retrieved.

Thanks.

Mike

[Midknyte]

As far as the file system knows, the RAID0 array is ONE physical drive. The MFT would be technically on both of them, but not as a single file. You shouldn't be able to pull the MFT off of just a single drive.

Like I said, your case is very unique in that you're using an enclosure, which is basically proprietary. If you were to move a RAID0 array from one motherboard to another, it wouldn't work at all.

[lbeachmike]

Okay - this is interesting then since it's successfully reconstructing the MFT data, but not the file content. That probably does not bode well for my data. I'll likely try to RAID rebuild this weekend and see what that does for me.

Thanks for all of your help and guidance.

[BipolarBill]

RAID 0 , RAID 1 - no matter what you use, you MUST backup your data. Acronis and the other drive imagers work fine with RAID arrays.

It's simple. If you keep all of your data in only one place, it is vulnerable. Even RAID 1 doesn't cover data corruption - only a single failed drive. If Windows is hosed on RAID 1, it's still hosed.

There is no substitute for a proper backup plan. You should store all valuable data in one place and use an external drive for imaging that data regularly. That way, you have the data in two places at any one time. That is true fault tolerance.

Mike, you have been a member for along time now. Take this to heart.

[lbeachmike]

Hey Bill -

I have over 3 Terabytes of data - this stuff was non-critical and thus not included in my backups. I do run Acronis which does incrementals on my critical data (boot drive and music data drive) on a bi-weekly basis. I even got Acronis ordered for my department at work, so your message is loud and clear.

Thanks for responding on this thread - I always enjoy seeing your avatar come up

Mike

[Midknyte]

In Mike's defense, it actually is an external drive. Unfortunately, LaCie chose to market it as a "Big Disk" rather than saying a "RAID0 Disk". Maxtor and other companies did the same marketing, so I guess it's an industry thing.

Glad to hear you taking the backup advice. If your data is really critical, you should have more than 1 backup. A backup OFF SITE is important. Backups won't help you if there is a fire/flood/earthquake that destroys your office.

[lbeachmike]

OFF SITE[/B] is important. Backups won't help you if there is a fire/flood/earthquake that destroys your office.

Yes - the off-site backup is currently the missing link, in that I don't do it with regularity and need to put a procedure in place for that.

I have an off-site server that I've uploaded images to on occasion, but I need to incorporate that as my regular routine. I have not taken a close look at whether or not Acronis includes functionality for this. If so, it should be a simple matter, although it's a considerable amount of data to upload. I may need to upgrade my ISP services to provide for faster upload transfer.