Two partitionless BTRFS drives no longer seen as containing BTRFS filesystem

2018-10-06 Thread evan d
I have two hard drives that were never partitioned, but set up as two independent BRTFS filesystems. Both drives were used in the same machine running Arch Linux and the drives contain(ed) largely static data. I decommissioned the machine they were originally used in and on installing in a newer

Re: Two partitionless BTRFS drives no longer seen as containing BTRFS filesystem

2018-10-06 Thread Remi Gauvin
On 2018-10-06 07:23 PM, evan d wrote: > I have two hard drives that were never partitioned, but set up as two > independent BRTFS filesystems. Both drives were used in the same > machine running Arch Linux and the drives contain(ed) largely static > data. > > I decommissioned the machine they wer

Re: Two partitionless BTRFS drives no longer seen as containing BTRFS filesystem

2018-10-06 Thread Qu Wenruo
On 2018/10/7 上午7:23, evan d wrote: > I have two hard drives that were never partitioned, but set up as two > independent BRTFS filesystems. Both drives were used in the same > machine running Arch Linux and the drives contain(ed) largely static > data. > > I decommissioned the machine they were

Re: Two partitionless BTRFS drives no longer seen as containing BTRFS filesystem

2018-10-06 Thread evan d
> Did you try a btrfs device scan ? Tried it, it returns nothing.

Re: Two partitionless BTRFS drives no longer seen as containing BTRFS filesystem

2018-10-06 Thread evan d
> Please try "btrfs ins dump-super -fFa" on these two disks. > > If it's only the primary superblock corrupted, the backup should be good. > > If backup is also corrupted, either it has some offset or the whole data > is corrupted. # btrfs ins dump-super -fFa /dev/sdb superblock: bytenr=65536, dev

Re: Two partitionless BTRFS drives no longer seen as containing BTRFS filesystem

2018-10-06 Thread Qu Wenruo
On 2018/10/7 下午2:10, evan d wrote: >> Please try "btrfs ins dump-super -fFa" on these two disks. >> >> If it's only the primary superblock corrupted, the backup should be good. >> >> If backup is also corrupted, either it has some offset or the whole data >> is corrupted. > > # btrfs ins dump-su

Re: Two partitionless BTRFS drives no longer seen as containing BTRFS filesystem

2018-10-06 Thread evan d
> None of your super blocks has correct magic. I take it this applies to both drives? > This means either your whole disk get corrupted, or something introduced > some offset. > > Please try the following commands to dump more data around super blocks, > so we could be able to find the possibl

Re: Two partitionless BTRFS drives no longer seen as containing BTRFS filesystem

2018-10-07 Thread Qu Wenruo
On 2018/10/7 下午2:47, evan d wrote: >> None of your super blocks has correct magic. > > > I take it this applies to both drives? Yes, both drivers have something wrong. > > > >> This means either your whole disk get corrupted, or something introduced >> some offset. >> >> Please try the fol

Re: Two partitionless BTRFS drives no longer seen as containing BTRFS filesystem

2018-10-07 Thread evan d
> If first 128M doesn't hit, I highly doubt something more strange happened. Not sure I follow, do you mean if it doesn't hit then it's likely something else went wrong? > I'm considering something like encryption. > Maybe the disk is already encrypted by hardware? The drives were never encrypt

Re: Two partitionless BTRFS drives no longer seen as containing BTRFS filesystem

2018-10-07 Thread Qu Wenruo
On 2018/10/7 下午4:09, evan d wrote: >> If first 128M doesn't hit, I highly doubt something more strange happened. > > Not sure I follow, do you mean if it doesn't hit then it's likely > something else went wrong? Yes. If it's just a simple offset, it should hit. If it's some simple corruption l

Re: Two partitionless BTRFS drives no longer seen as containing BTRFS filesystem

2018-10-07 Thread evan d
> >> # dd if=/dev/sdb bs=1M of=last_chance.raw count=128 skip=256M > >> # grep -obUaP "\x5F\x42\x48\x52\x66\x53\x5F\x4D" last_chance.raw grep returns no result on either drive If still no hit, you could try just run the grep command on the disk. like so?: grep -obUaP "\x5F\x42\x48\x52\x66\x

Re: Two partitionless BTRFS drives no longer seen as containing BTRFS filesystem

2018-10-07 Thread Qu Wenruo
On 2018/10/7 下午4:28, evan d wrote: # dd if=/dev/sdb bs=1M of=last_chance.raw count=128 skip=256M # grep -obUaP "\x5F\x42\x48\x52\x66\x53\x5F\x4D" last_chance.raw > > grep returns no result on either drive > > If still no hit, you could try just run the grep command on the disk. >

Re: Two partitionless BTRFS drives no longer seen as containing BTRFS filesystem

2018-10-07 Thread evan d
> > like so?: > > grep -obUaP "\x5F\x42\x48\x52\x66\x53\x5F\x4D" /dev/sdc > > > Yes. And it will be very slow, since you're going to read out the whole > disk. > > But I don't really think you would get some hit, according to current > result. Ok, so it is what it is. Based on what you're telling

Re: Two partitionless BTRFS drives no longer seen as containing BTRFS filesystem

2018-10-07 Thread Qu Wenruo
On 2018/10/7 下午6:39, evan d wrote: >>> like so?: >>> grep -obUaP "\x5F\x42\x48\x52\x66\x53\x5F\x4D" /dev/sdc >>> >> Yes. And it will be very slow, since you're going to read out the whole >> disk. >> >> But I don't really think you would get some hit, according to current >> result. > > Ok, so i

Re: Two partitionless BTRFS drives no longer seen as containing BTRFS filesystem

2018-10-07 Thread evan d
> > I may as well use wipefs to clear crud from both drives, partition and > > format them and then use them elsewhere. -- this more or less > > accurately summarise the situation? > > Unfortunately, yes. I recall the machine these drives were in lost the onboard NIC when the desktop switch it

Re: Two partitionless BTRFS drives no longer seen as containing BTRFS filesystem

2018-10-07 Thread evan d
Thanks for looking at it for me, appreciate the input. On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 2:25 PM evan d wrote: > > > > I may as well use wipefs to clear crud from both drives, partition and > > > format them and then use them elsewhere. -- this more or less > > > accurately summarise the situation? > > > >