Buffalo NAS-Central Forums

Welcome to the Linkstation Wiki community
It is currently Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:47 pm

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2012 8:56 pm 
Offline
Total Newbie

Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2012 8:40 pm
Posts: 4
[The device is not visible over the network, and there is not a serial port to ssh into, even if Buffalo allowed it, which I doubt they would. tftp only on other devices that had the serial port. The device runs, apparently normal, but simply does nothing at all useful. NasiNav cant see it even with a direct, known-good ethernet cable. Therefore, firmware revision is unknown.]


Backstory:

A User has lost access to data stored on a NAS device drive Buffalo LS-W1.0TGL/R1. THe unit has a default filessystem setup, using the entire available drive space for storage RAID0

Drive contains the primary and only copies of digital photos of her children since their birth, and other sentimental items. She thought bysaving it on the device she was performing a "backup". This is the only copy of the date in existence if the data still resides on the drives. Buffalo support has not been helpful thus far, by phone, according to the User. Therefore, I have ended up with this project.

The partition (table listing is below) uses an XFS file system.

This article practically reiterates the entire problem we are also dealing with. the XFS component has made the project particularly enjoyable for the user and myself! :-)
http://forums.popphoto.com/showthread.p ... alo-drives


I have been using Ubuntu12.04 Secure Remix, installed to a computer, and also Rescue Remix as a LiveCD

ATTEMPTS THUS FAR:

After plugging the drives into Windows7 and MacOS, just to see if I got lucky, I ran Matrox Kryptonite which balked since XFS support is weak. [XFS and Mac's BSD Unix just made my eyes bleed].

So, I rolled up my sleeves and used my trusty Ubuntu 12 laptop. It's an HP laptop, so it keeps the room nice and toasty! ;-)

DDrepair ubuntu and related tools have been used. I rigged up a direct cabling SATA to USB to one of the two drives inside the NAS, and connected via USB.

sudo ddrescue -r 3 -C /dev/sdx /media/rescuedata/image1.img /media/rescuedate/logfile

The results were not useful having tried to run ddrescue as follows: one drive at a time, and rescue files individually from each image, and also trying to append one drive to another (-C) . All images generated by ddrescue were not mountable. I tried to run mmls imagefile -b
but, the mount command would not run.. I tried
sudo mount -o loop,offset=16384 /media/rescuedata/image1.img /media/rescuedata2
<and>
sudo mount -t xfs -o loop,offset=16384 /media/rescuedata/image1.img /media/rescuedata2

The problem is that mmls appears to only support: dos mac, bsd, sun, gpt
mmls -t gpt -i raw /media/rescuedata/rescue1.img
yields:
"Invalid Magic Value" and the rest varies per filesystem type (bsd/gpt/dos/sun etc)
so I cant really see the offset size.. and therefore cant really mount the image.

I am running FOREMOST right now.. and that is going to take a while.. so I thought i was ask the forums their thoughts. I will update posts if Foremost does the job, otherwise, assume this is an open issue.


XFS_repair/XFS_check utilities yielded no joy..
The output of xfs_check is:
xfs_check /dev/sdx
xfs_check: unexpected XFS SB magic number 0x4449534b
xfs_check: WARNING filesystem V1 dirs, limited functionality provided.
xfs_check: read failed: Invalid argument
xfs_check: data size check failed
cache_node_purge:refcount was 1, not zero (node=0xa0a4900)
xfs_check: cannot read root inode (22)
bad superblock magic number 4449534b, giving up

And when I try xfs_repair I get:
xfs_repair -n /dev/sdx (runs for a hours)
Phase 1 - find and verify superblock...
bad primary superblock - bad magic number !!!
attempting to find secondary superblock...
...found candidate secondary superblock... error reading superblock 115 -- seek to offset 493913702400 failed unable to verify superblock, continuing...
[or on another pass...]
...found candidate secondary superblock... error reading superblock 117 -- seek to offset 502503505920 failed unable to verify superblock, continuing...
[etc etc the above appears a few times, until finally]
...Sorry, could not find valid secondary superblock
Exiting now.



Here is a sample of one of the two drives (both are identical):

Disk /dev/sdc: 500.1 GB, 500107862016 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 60801 cylinders, total 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
Disk identifier: 0xf1bab5ab

Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/sdc1 63 2008124 1004031 83 Linux
/dev/sdc2 2008125 12016619 5004247+ 83 Linux
/dev/sdc4 12016620 976768064 482375722+ 5 Extended
/dev/sdc5 12016683 14024744 1004031 82 Linux swap / Solaris
/dev/sdc6 14024808 974984849 480480021 83 Linux
.
TestDisk 6.13, Data Recovery Utility, November 2011
Christophe GRENIER <grenier@cgsecurity.org>
http://www.cgsecurity.org

Disk /dev/sdc - 500 GB / 465 GiB - CHS 60801 255 63

The harddisk (500 GB / 465 GiB) seems too small! (< 1261 GB / 1175 GiB)
Check the harddisk size: HD jumpers settings, BIOS detection...

The following partitions can't be recovered:
Partition Start End Size in sectors
Linux 873 1 1 120506 248 38 1921919744
> Linux 33769 1 1 153402 248 38 1921919744
[ Continue ]
XFS 6.2+ - bitmap version, 984 GB / 916 GiB


[Next I will be assembling a mock up RAID1 or RAID0 array with USB cables after I return from the Holy GeekStube, MicroCenter. I thought I would try ufsexplorer on various OS Platforms to see if it makes a difference.]

[I have a couple of other ideas, but it is becoming a question of time invested etc.. at this point... this is a reasonably slow process and some of it is necessarily trial and error.]

Bryan Grant Atlanta GA

PS:
Why does Buffalo use XFS on consumer devices? Most home users never think to buy and use a UPS, so.. why set them up for failure and data loss by selecting XFS?! I am just saying
"Due to balance of speed and safety, there is the possibility to lose data on abrupt power loss (outdated journal metadata), but not filesystem consistence"


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2012 6:01 am 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 10:39 am
Posts: 2604
I think you need to setup the RAID for ANY kind of access, due to RAID0.
A xfs_repair on the disk will always fail, because you need to run it on a
partition, if the disk is partitioned.
DO NOT CREATE a RAID, just try to recover the existing. Read the manual
of mdadm, how to achieve this. If you CREATE a RAID, you will definitely
delete the data!!
Run xfs_repair on the recovered RAID partition ONLY if you can't access it
resp. the data on it. First backup as much as you can, the xfs_repair, then
another backup.
You only need partition 6 on both drives for the recovery. That is the place
where all the data is stored. Partitions 1 and 2 are used by the OS of the LS
only (as is the partition 5 as swap partition).

_________________
Please do not use private mail (PN/M) to ask questions. Use the proper forum instead. (me)

If there is no verified backup of a dataset, the dataset, by definition, is unimportant. (c't 2012)

RAID (no matter which level) never ever substitutes a backup. (me)


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 10:05 pm 
Offline
Total Newbie

Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2012 8:40 pm
Posts: 4
Thanks! You are correct of course. However.. it was possible to recover files without creating the RAID, but the results were interesting. The photos, for example, appeared as if they had been run through a digital paper shredder!

LOL!

So then end results was that I ended up buying the UFSExplorer Software for 99Euro. It worked. I decided to do this since I really wanted to recover the entire directory tree and one of the two drives refused to mount at all in a RAID0.

UFSexplorer handled it, was able to read the data even without a superblock on the 2nd drive, setup the raid, and then properly extract all the data into an external storage device with the directory tree and 97% of the files intact.

I call that a success!


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 7:47 am 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 10:39 am
Posts: 2604
Me too. ;-)

_________________
Please do not use private mail (PN/M) to ask questions. Use the proper forum instead. (me)

If there is no verified backup of a dataset, the dataset, by definition, is unimportant. (c't 2012)

RAID (no matter which level) never ever substitutes a backup. (me)


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited