# RAID0 recovery?



## Deleted member 106413 (Dec 15, 2012)

Hello everyone,
While I was trying to install Windows 8  on a RAID0 partition, and trying different diskpart commands, I think I fu**ed up my RAID. Now in Windows it says it's got to be formatted, but I'd like to recover some data if it's possible. Does somebody know how to do this?
I tried a couple of RAID recovery software but they don't recognize my partition. Am I screwed?
Thanks for all the replies.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Dec 15, 2012)

Before venturing further what EXACTLY was done to have it FUBAR?


----------



## Deleted member 106413 (Dec 15, 2012)

JrRacinFan said:


> Before venturing further what EXACTLY was done to have it FUBAR?



These are the commands I attempted:

```
C:\> Diskpart

DISKPART> list volume

DISKPART> select volume 4

DISKPART> online volume

DISKPART> attributes volume clear readonly

DISKPART> clean

DISKPART> convert gpt

DISKPART> create partition efi size=100

DISKPART> assign letter=s

DISKPART>format quick fs=FAT32

DISKPART>create partition msr size=128

DISKPART> create partition primary align=32

DISKPART>assign letter=p

DISKPART> select part 1

DISKPART> format fs=ntfs label="System" unit=512 quick compress

[B]Here it said it couldn't format or something[/B]

DISKPART> assign letter q

DISKPART> list volume

DISKPART> exit
```

Of course in the end I couldn't install Windows, but I saw that the 65GB partition I created before was gone, probably merged with the 4TB RAID0.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Dec 15, 2012)

I am kind of leaning towards that the data is gone at this point


```
DISKPART>format quick fs=FAT32

DISKPART>create partition msr size=128

DISKPART> create partition primary align=32

DISKPART>assign letter=p
```


----------



## Deleted member 106413 (Dec 15, 2012)

JrRacinFan said:


> I am kind of leaning towards that the data is gone at this point
> 
> 
> ```
> ...



Yeah I thought about it too, but didn't I only format the 65GB partition? If not not too bad, there weren't importand data there, just Steam games and downloaded junk.

EDIT: I am using a non-RAID recovery software, and it's finding 2000 files as of now, so I guess it's not formatted yet?


----------



## JrRacinFan (Dec 15, 2012)

Yeah see that's where the info I need lies. What disk id's are linked to which partitions/volumes and which one is the major portion?


niciuffo said:


> DISKPART> format fs=ntfs label="System" unit=512 quick compress


that's also a problem. I've never heard of the "quick compress" flag before.


----------



## Sinzia (Dec 15, 2012)

A quick format only deletes the file table, not the files themselves, so the disk doesn't know where to look for the files.

If you did a full format then you'd be pretty much hosed.


----------



## Deleted member 106413 (Dec 15, 2012)

Sinzia said:


> A quick format only deletes the file table, not the files themselves, so the disk doesn't know where to look for the files.
> 
> If you did a full format then you'd be pretty much hosed.



Hmm okay, and how do I restore them? With a recovery software? Can you suggest one that works, maybe freeware? (I remember the name Recuva...)


----------



## JrRacinFan (Dec 15, 2012)

That changes things. Find a place to recover them to and yes Recuva does a great job for being freeware.


----------



## Deleted member 106413 (Dec 15, 2012)

Recuva won't let me scan drive E:\ . It says it can't read boot sector.
Trying with EASEUS Data Recovery


----------



## McSteel (Dec 15, 2012)

If you don't shy away from piracy, or have money to throw away, you'll find GetDataBack for NTFS rather useful. At this point, you've killed your MBR and your PBR, as well as your MFT, so you'll only be able to find your file via pattern matching. Meaning, the software you should use has to recognize a file's header to discern whether it's a .jpg, an .mp3 or an .avi, for example. And even then, it will be hard to recover badly fragmented files, if not impossible. Why were you doing all that in diskpart? Actually, why the hell would you convert a disk containing important files to GPT? Did no one tell you this is a destructive procedure?

As for using GetDataBack, be sure to set the options "Sustained file system damage", then use "Excessive search", "Recover lost files", "Recover deleted files", and un-check "Use valid MFT entries only".
Good luck!


----------



## Deleted member 106413 (Dec 15, 2012)

McSteel said:


> If you don't shy away from piracy, or have money to throw away, you'll find GetDataBack for NTFS rather useful. At this point, you've killed your MBR and your PBR, as well as your MFT, so you'll only be able to find your file via pattern matching. Meaning, the software you should use has to recognize a file's header to discern whether it's a .jpg, an .mp3 or an .avi, for example. And even then, it will be hard to recover badly fragmented files, if not impossible. Why were you doing all that in diskpart? Actually, why the hell would you convert a disk containing important files to GPT? Did no one tell you this is a destructive procedure?
> 
> As for using GetDataBack, be sure to set the options "Sustained file system damage", then use "Excessive search", "Recover lost files", "Recover deleted files", and un-check "Use valid MFT entries only".
> Good luck!



I never said it had important data, it only had my Steam games (400GB+), my downloaded files and other useless stuff. In fact, all my data is in my 240Gb SSD for security, plus I have a copy of everything in Dropbox or GDrive.
I just wanted to be able to recover all this stuff cause I don't want to download it all over again. We'll see how it goes in 6-8 hours when the process finishes.
Thanks for that software though. I'll see what to do if EASEUS doesn't work by that time.
Thanks everyone for the help


----------



## Mindweaver (Dec 15, 2012)

*RAID* (_redundant array of independent disks_) 

But.. "*RAID 0*" doesn't have any redundancy. "*RAID 0*" should only be used for improved performance, and additional storage space. Any single drive failure destroys the array. I would cut my loses, and rebuild the array, and start over.  The time you'll spend trying to recover the drive failure would be better used by rebuilding the array. Since, nothing important was on the array.


----------



## Deleted member 106413 (Dec 15, 2012)

Mindweaver said:


> *RAID* (_redundant array of independent disks_)
> 
> But.. "*RAID 0*" doesn't have any redundancy. "*RAID 0*" should only be used for improved performance, and additional storage space. Any single drive failure destroys the array. I would cut my loses, and rebuild the array, and start over.  The time you'll spend trying to recover the drive failure would be better used by rebuilding the array. Since, nothing important was on the array.



45 minutes left 
I still want to try recover as much as I can, I found a 2TB external HDD that'll do the work ^^
(Don't want to download 500-600GB eheh)
By the way, wouldn't there be a way to "rebuild" the file structure of the HDD's? Or is it impossible?


----------



## McSteel (Dec 15, 2012)

It's impossible, even in theory. When you write a file to a RAID0 volume, the odd blocks will be written to one constituent drive, and the even ones to the other. When one drive fails, you lose literally 50% of file data with absolutely no way to reconstruct them. There are no hash values, parity checks, CRCs, nothing.

About your recovery attempt... Say you do manage to recover 80% of the files from the array. How will you run a Steam game if even one file is missing from it's folder? Since I don't game on Steam, does it have an option to re-download missing/corrupted parts of a game?


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Dec 15, 2012)

How is your RAID array fucked? You only touched the file system as far as I can tell. Ignore the fact that it's a RAID array and approach it as a normal disk. The OS isn't aware of an array, just a disk. What hardware lies underneath isn't relevant.


----------



## _Zod_ (Dec 15, 2012)

Mindweaver said:


> *RAID* (_redundant array of independent disks_)



Bingo! Raid 0 is not raid, it's JBOD. I hate that it gets tagged as a Raid option.


----------



## McSteel (Dec 15, 2012)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> How is your RAID array fucked? You only touched the file system as far as I can tell. Ignore the fact that it's a RAID array and approach it as a normal disk. The OS isn't aware of an array, just a disk. What hardware lies underneath isn't relevant.



Yes, but all traces of a file table are gone, and so is any partitioning info. It's a disk with files physically sitting on it, but no index of their position, length and names. Perhaps if he's super lucky, a capable software can find $MFT intact on the disk, and use it to restore everything else. But that requires quite the amount of dumb luck...


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 15, 2012)

_Zod_ said:


> Bingo! Raid 0 is not raid, it's JBOD. I hate that it gets tagged as a Raid option.



That's incorrect. Get your facts straight. JBOD concatenates disks, it doesn't stripe them like RAID-0 does. RAID-0 and JBOD do two very different things. The only thing they have in common is that they don't offer redundancy.


----------



## Deleted member 106413 (Dec 16, 2012)

McSteel said:


> It's impossible, even in theory. When you write a file to a RAID0 volume, the odd blocks will be written to one constituent drive, and the even ones to the other. When one drive fails, you lose literally 50% of file data with absolutely no way to reconstruct them. There are no hash values, parity checks, CRCs, nothing.
> 
> About your recovery attempt... Say you do manage to recover 80% of the files from the array. How will you run a Steam game if even one file is missing from it's folder? Since I don't game on Steam, does it have an option to re-download missing/corrupted parts of a game?



Yeah, Steam has the option to check game integrity and re-download corrupted files... by the way GetDataBack didn't work, it scanned the entire array (took about 5 hours), found TWO system files, and when I selected one of them it crashed   Now I'm trying with EASEUS, if that fails, I guess I'll format it.


----------



## McSteel (Dec 16, 2012)

You could also try Active@ Partition Recovery, but it's likely that the $MFT was damaged. I believe that APR is capable of finding MFT backup and using it, as well as recognizing files via header signature and $Bitmap record, if present and undamaged...

If your D/L speed is upwards of say 15-20 Mbps, it might actually be quicker to just re-download everything.


----------



## Deleted member 106413 (Dec 16, 2012)

McSteel said:


> You could also try Active@ Partition Recovery, but it's likely that the $MFT was damaged. I believe that APR is capable of finding MFT backup and using it, as well as recognizing files via header signature and $Bitmap record, if present and undamaged...
> 
> If your D/L speed is upwards of say 15-20 Mbps, it might actually be quicker to just re-download everything.



EASEUS just finished scanning, but it found a bunch of meaningless files. There are like 3000 rar files (1.rar,2.rar...3000.rar), and there is a .doc of 2.4GB LOL.
I'm gonna try that software and let the pc running tonight, and if that doesn't work, full format 
By the way I have a 20Mbps so yeah it shouldn't take THAT much...


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 16, 2012)

If two applications are providing either nothing or gibberish, it's very likely that you won't be recovering much of anything.


----------



## Deleted member 106413 (Dec 16, 2012)

I formatted today.
Thanks for all your help, you can close this thread now


----------



## brandonwh64 (Dec 16, 2012)

Yea even thought raid 0 is fast, it is a complete disaster if one drive dies. I am just waiting on the day when one of my drives die but I backup all important things to my 1TB black drive.


----------



## Mindweaver (Dec 16, 2012)

Yea, I always liked to put my boot drive in raid 0 using mechanical drives. The one thing most users overlook is finding a drive that is RAID specific like WD RE drives or Seagate's Enterprise drives. I still have 3x WD RE2 250Gb drives in RAID 0 (_180 read, 170 write_) that have been working great with out failure for over 5 years. Since, I've bought a SSD I use it as a boot drive now, and only use the RAID 0 for Steam games.


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 16, 2012)

Mindweaver said:


> Yea, I always liked to put my boot drive in raid 0 using mechanical drives. The one thing most users overlook is finding a drive that is RAID specific like WD RE drives or Seagate's Enterprise drives. I still have 3x WD RE2 250Gb drives in RAID 0 (_180 read, 170 write_) that have been working great with out failure for over 5 years. Since, I've bought a SSD I use it as a boot drive now, and only use the RAID 0 for Steam games.



I do something similar. I have a RAID-0 of SSDs for boot and applications and a RAID-5 for music, video, and files. I do nightly backups of my RAID-0 to my RAID-5 and along with that I have an external backup that I backup the RAID-5 to once a week.


----------



## Mindweaver (Dec 16, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> I do something similar. I have a RAID-0 of SSDs for boot and applications and a RAID-5 for music, video, and files. I do nightly backups of my RAID-0 to my RAID-5 and along with that I have an external backup that I backup the RAID-5 to once a week.



Nice! I have a hardware RAID 5 with BBU using 4x WD Raptor 10,000 rpm drives for my SQL Server. The higher rpm drives are nice and quick, but the failure rate is higher than a lower rpm drive. I lose a couple Raptor drives a year. I have the RAID 0 drives in a software array. I maintain 9x arrays total (_6x hardware arrays, 3x software arrays_).


----------



## Sinzia (Dec 16, 2012)

SSD raid 0 here, and a raid 0 with momentus XT's for steam, backed up every other night to an external that's rotated out of the house every month.

Data backup is important, you can loose it very, VERY easily.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Dec 17, 2012)

Yeah I saw a great analogy once: RAID 0 is like flying down the highway on a crotch rocket wearing zero safety gear. Man it's fast and quite a rush but if any one little thing goes wrong...you're dead.



Mindweaver said:


> Nice! I have a hardware RAID 5 with BBU using 4x WD Raptor 10,000 rpm drives for my SQL Server. The higher rpm drives are nice and quick, but the failure rate is higher than a lower rpm drive. I lose a couple Raptor drives a year. I have the RAID 0 drives in a software array. I maintain 9x arrays total (_6x hardware arrays, 3x software arrays_).



Just bought a server-pulled, never-used IBM M1015 for only $75 on eBay which is a rebranded LSI 9200i. Doesn't do RAID 5 with out an add-in chip but that is just fine for my present needs. There are more available around the same price form other seller(s).

And sure "RAID Edition" drives are better with error handling (TLER) and have anti-vibration protections and stuff but they really aren't any more physically reliable than other 7200 RPM mechanical.


----------



## _Zod_ (Dec 18, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> That's incorrect. Get your facts straight. JBOD concatenates disks, it doesn't stripe them like RAID-0 does. RAID-0 and JBOD do two very different things. The only thing they have in common is that they don't offer redundancy.



We are both wrong, so get your facts straight as well. JBOD does not concatenate disks, SPAN and BIG do.


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 18, 2012)

_Zod_ said:


> We are both wrong, so get your facts straight as well. JBOD does not concatenate disks, SPAN and BIG do.



A: You don't know what you're talking about.

B: The only place that says this is an uncited wikipedia page so learn how to do real research before you start spitting out crap that isn't true.

C: Being a system admin I like to think that I know a little bit about managing servers and what RAID controllers can do and I hate to say it but the "SPAN and BIG" thing is crap because I don't have a single RAID controller that has the option of using "SPAN or BIG" but every one of them will do JBOD.

D: If you really did any research you would fine that these terms don't find there way past wikipedia. Also If you also checked the sources on that page, no a single mention of this is made. Some idiot just added this to wikipedia without having any sources because there are none...

Aka: Don't use Wikipedia then pretend you know everything then act like your hot shit.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Dec 18, 2012)

You should fix that wiki page yourself.


----------



## 3870x2 (Dec 18, 2012)

_Zod_ said:


> Bingo! Raid 0 is not raid, it's JBOD. I hate that it gets tagged as a Raid option.



I guess if you wanted to be technical about it.


----------



## Mindweaver (Dec 18, 2012)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> And sure "RAID Edition" drives are better with error handling (TLER) and have anti-vibration protections and stuff but *they really aren't any more physically reliable than other 7200 RPM mechanical.*



Not sure if I follow what you are saying here? Are you saying a non RAID-Specific 7200rpm drive is as physically reliable as a RAID-specific 7200rpm drive? if so I agree, or are you saying a non RAID-Specific 7200rpm drive is as physically reliable as a RAID-Specific 10,000rpm drive? If so then I have to disagree, because a higher rpm drive has a higher chance of failure then a lower rpm drive due to the higher write speeds. You don't buy a 10k or 15k drive for reliability, you buy them for speed.


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 18, 2012)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> You should fix that wiki page yourself.



There was already a debate. I added to the page discussion and marked it as disputed before I delete it. I want knowledgeable people to have the chance to chime in before I actually remove it.








Mindweaver said:


> You don't buy a 10k or 15k drive for reliability, you buy them for speed.



For speed and write endurance. SSDs are faster but you'll wear them out faster in write-heavy environments.


----------



## Mindweaver (Dec 18, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> For speed and write endurance. SSDs are faster but you'll wear them out faster in write-heavy environments.



Yea, I plan to buy a few SSD's next year to RAID. I've not jumped in due to price, but with prices dropping that will change soon.  Plus, I want a few more SATAIII RAID Controller Cards on the market. I want the prices to drop on them as well.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Dec 18, 2012)

Mindweaver said:


> Are you saying a non RAID-Specific 7200rpm drive is as physically reliable as a RAID-specific 7200rpm drive?



Yes, generally-speaking and in and of themselves. Not comparing to higher RPM, that's apples to oranges. Why I stated "7200 RPM" specifically.


----------



## _Zod_ (Dec 18, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> A: You don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> B: The only place that says this is an uncited wikipedia page so learn how to do real research before you start spitting out crap that isn't true.
> 
> ...



Fyi I'm not the one trying to come off as hot shit. Lose the attitude mister big shot sys admin


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Dec 18, 2012)

In his defense, there has been whole lot of misinformation flying around this thread. And when the subject is something like RAID, that can be disastrous.


----------



## jihadjoe (Dec 18, 2012)

^ plus the fact that the failure OP is experiencing has nothing to do with RAID.
OP made a mistake and messed up the filesystem. Even with RAID 5, or RAID 1 his array is still fubar.


----------



## _Zod_ (Dec 18, 2012)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> In his defense, there has been whole lot of misinformation flying around this thread. And when the subject is something like RAID, that can be disastrous.



The main point was that when a RAID 0 dies, it's dead, there is no recovery. I think that made it through the noise which I apologize for being part of.


----------

