I trust that it was not dropped  - the device does not make any abnormal noises that would lead me to believe that is the case. It spins up normally...

I have the image made ...
[root at server /mount/archive/da-harddrive]# ls -la
total 78188872
-rw-r--r--   1 ryan  wheel  80026361856 Apr 13 03:46 80gb.drive
-rw-r--r--   1 ryan  wheel          425 Apr 13 03:46 80gb.log

When I try to mount that with mount_ntfs I get the following (expected) error:
mount_ntfs: /mount/archive/da-harddrive/80gb.drive: Block device required

Is there a way to fake the Block device? I also tried just now to mount the physical partition with the fusefs NTFS port and got the following response:
[root at server /mount/archive/da-harddrive]# ntfs-3g  /dev/da0 /mount/drive1
NTFS signature is missing.
Failed to mount '/dev/da0': Invalid argument
The device '/dev/da0' doesn't seem to have a valid NTFS.
Maybe the wrong device is used? Or the whole disk instead of a
partition (e.g. /dev/sda, not /dev/sda1)? Or the other way around?

I'm still planning on testing out TestDisk.

On Apr 13, 2010, at 10:20 AM, Justin Kremer wrote:

> Just a couple comments from a couple similar experiences I had...
> The first is to figure out the mode of failure of the drive.
> Is it from a laptop that was dropped during use?  Is it a drive that
> is having sectors go bad?  Did someone do something silly and start
> writing zeros to the wrong device?  (not that I've ever done that...)
> Different modes of failure may require different tactics, and can also
> have very different results.
> 
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Ryan Coleman <ryanjcole at me.com> wrote:
>> I was given leads to using ddrescue and dd but frankly that is outside of my
>> realm of knowledge and 9 of the 10  NTFS partitions that refused to mount in
>> Windows have mounted so far in FreeBSD (I'm running 8.0).
> 
> ddrescue might be VERY useful in this situation.  If you're not
> familiar, it is basically dd, but it is forced to keep reading (and
> writing) on when it encounters bad blocks.  Some of the files will end
> up corrupt in the disk image you create, but if you are fortunate, the
> lion's share will be there.
> You just want to start with the failed drive readable to you, and with
> a location you can write the output file to with more space available
> than the size of the partition you are trying to recover.
> Both dd and ddrescue use similar syntax.  As I recall there is a
> slight difference, but starting with the basics, you should be able to
> figure out the rest...
> I think the command I used was: dd if=(path of the device name for the
> partition to be recovered) of=(path of the file name to create from
> the partition)
> Certain other flags may be necessary, and ddrescue may be the
> preferable command.  The less times you have to try the better.  If
> the drive's condition is getting worse with use, you want to use it
> less if possible!
> I would expect it to take a LONG time.
> Once the process is complete, you can try to mount the output file as
> a loopback filesystem.  (under Linux, I believe the flag is "-o loop")
> If you're able to mount it, you should be able to copy any important
> files off of it and then weed out what is intact and what is corrupt
> without dealing with i/o errors in the middle of trying to copy a
> batch of files.
> 
>> The drive is presently connected via USB on a SATA sled.
>> I know that there's something to be had on there somewhere:
> 
> Personally, I would try to use the most direct connection possible.
> SATA direct to the motherboard first.  Maybe it's just my dislike for
> middlemen...
> - Justin
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota
> tclug-list at mn-linux.org
> http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.mn-linux.org/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20100413/391642c4/attachment.htm