1 |
On Tuesday 04 Oct 2011 06:27:50 Paul Hartman wrote: |
2 |
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 12:18 AM, Mick <michaelkintzios@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
> > On Tuesday 04 Oct 2011 04:39:45 Adam Carter wrote: |
4 |
> >> If the data is important, I'd use ddrescue to create an image of the |
5 |
> >> drive, then run testdisk over that image to see if it can untangle the |
6 |
> >> partition table mess. Both are in portage. |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> > Well, that's the thing: I'm not sure that there is a mess. At least not |
9 |
> > as far as parted is concerned, which can read the partition table |
10 |
> > properly. |
11 |
> > |
12 |
> > I suspect that fdisk (unlike parted) is not capable of reading the device |
13 |
> > correctly. |
14 |
> > |
15 |
> > I forgot to say that when mounted the USB stick shows not partitions |
16 |
> > (i.e. there is no sdb1, sdb2, etc.) To access the fs I must do |
17 |
> > something like: |
18 |
> > |
19 |
> > pmount /dev/sdb |
20 |
> > |
21 |
> > and then all is lists under /media/sdb. It is like a big floppy. |
22 |
> |
23 |
> I think that's your answer. The "partition table" looks funny because |
24 |
> it isn't one. :) It is somewhat common. I've had some myself that are |
25 |
> like that. |
26 |
|
27 |
If there isn't a partition table, then why fdisk sees /dev/sdb1-4 with |
28 |
somewhat strange ID types? |
29 |
-- |
30 |
Regards, |
31 |
Mick |