Use GParted to list the partitions on your disk device. Look for a partition that contains your GNU/Linux / file system. This Linux partition will likely use a file system such as ext2, ext3, ext4, or btrfs.
((BETTER)) Crack Raise Data Recovery For Ext2 Ext3 Ext4 5 3
Download Zip: https://guexinati.blogspot.com/?download=2vEtXJ
The wiper.sh script trims read-write mounted ext4 or XFS file systems and read-only mounted/unmounted ext2, ext3, ext4, or XFS file systems. Do not use wiper.sh on the Btrfs file system as it may damage your data. Instead, use /usr/share/btrfsmaintenance/btrfs-trim.sh which is part of the btrfsmaintenance package.
Ontrack NAS Data Recovery receives good praise for data recovery and backups. The best feature of this tool is that, after a scan, you will receive all lost files in distinct folders based on their file type. Additionally, you can schedule automatic scans and check the health of your hard drives. It implies that you can monitor events without engaging in system or risk management. Overall, data recovery is facilitated by this incredibly effective and user-friendly tool.
The following is an example for Exadata Database Machine X6-2 and earlier systems of how to mount the root file system, and create two mount points. In the commands below, filesystem_type specifies the applicable file system type; either ext3 or ext4.
Undelete files from FAT, exFAT, NTFS, and ext2/ext3/ext4 file systems using TestDisk. However, this feature is hidden in the advanced menu, which ordinary customers seldom use. Furthermore, since you can't see data before recovery, retrieving individual files using TestDisk is a pain in the neck.
The vboximg-mount command includes experimental read-only access to file systems inside a VM disk image. This feature enables you to extract some files from the disk image without starting the VM and without requiring third-party file system drivers on the host system. FAT, NTFS, ext2, ext3, and ext4 file systems are supported.
A disk file system takes advantages of the ability of disk storage media to randomly address data in a short amount of time. Additional considerations include the speed of accessing data following that initially requested and the anticipation that the following data may also be requested. This permits multiple users (or processes) access to various data on the disk without regard to the sequential location of the data. Examples include FAT (FAT12, FAT16, FAT32), exFAT, NTFS, ReFS, HFS and HFS+, HPFS, APFS, UFS, ext2, ext3, ext4, XFS, btrfs, Files-11, Veritas File System, VMFS, ZFS, ReiserFS and ScoutFS. Some disk file systems are journaling file systems or versioning file systems.
Linux supports numerous file systems, but common choices for the system disk on a block device include the ext* family (ext2, ext3 and ext4), XFS, JFS, and btrfs. For raw flash without a flash translation layer (FTL) or Memory Technology Device (MTD), there are UBIFS, JFFS2 and YAFFS, among others. SquashFS is a common compressed read-only file system.
In some cases conversion can be done in-place, although migrating the file system is more conservative, as it involves a creating a copy of the data and is recommended.[36] On Windows, FAT and FAT32 file systems can be converted to NTFS via the convert.exe utility, but not the reverse.[36] On Linux, ext2 can be converted to ext3 (and converted back), and ext3 can be converted to ext4 (but not back),[37] and both ext3 and ext4 can be converted to btrfs, and converted back until the undo information is deleted.[38] These conversions are possible due to using the same format for the file data itself, and relocating the metadata into empty space, in some cases using sparse file support.[38]
That's not shotgun debugging (and not what the Jargon File calls it). The salient property of a shotgun isn't that it makes radical changes, but that it makes widespread changes. So you hit what you want to hit without aiming at it.Shotgun debugging is trying lots of little things, none that you particularly believe will fix the bug.In this case, the fallback to ext3 is fairly well targeted: the problem came contemporaneously with this one major and known change to the system, so it's not unreasonable to try undoing that change.The other comments give good reason to believe this is not the best way forward, but it isn't because it's shotgun debugging.There must be a term for the debugging mistake in which you give too much weight to the one recent change you know about in the area; I don't know what it is. (I've lost count of how many people accused me of breaking their Windows system because after I used it, there was a Putty icon on the desktop and something broke soon after that). Improving ext4: bigalloc, inline data, and metadata checksums Posted Nov 30, 2011 0:00 UTC (Wed) by bpepple (subscriber, #50705) [Link]
But the main issue is not that, by all accounts 'ext4' is quite reliable (when on a properly setup storage system and properly used by applications).The big problem with 'ext4' is that its only reason to be is to allow Red Hat customers to upgrade in place existing systems, and what Red Hat wants, Red Hat gets (also because they usually pay for that and the community is very grateful).Other than that new "typical" systems almost only JFS and XFS make sense (and perhaps in the distant future BTRFS).In particular JFS should have been the "default" Linux filesystem instead of ext[23] for a long time. Not making JFS the default was probably the single worst strategic decision for Linux (but it can be argued that letting GKH near the kernel was even worse). JFS is still probably (by a significant margin) the best ''all-rounder'' filesystem (XFS beats it in performance only on very parallel large workloads, and it is way more complex, and JFS has two uncommon but amazingly useful special features).Sure it was very convenient to let people (in particular Red Hat customers) upgrade in place from 'ext' to 'ext2' to 'ext3' to 'ext4' (each in-place upgrade keeping existing files unchanged and usually with terrible performance), but given that when JFS was introduced the Linux base was growing rapidly, new installations could be expected to outnumber old ones very soon, making that point largely moot.PS: There are other little known good filesystems, like OCFS2 (which is pretty good in non-clustered mode) and NILFS2 (probably going to be very useful on SSDs), but JFS is amazingly still very good. Reiser4 was also very promising (it seems little known that the main developer of BTRFS was also the main developer of Reiser4). As a pet peeve of mine UDF could have been very promising too, as it was quite well suited to RW media like hard disks too (and the Linux implementation almost worked in RW mode on an ordinary partition), and also to SSDs. Improving ext4: bigalloc, inline data, and metadata checksums Posted Nov 30, 2011 22:07 UTC (Wed) by yokem_55 (guest, #10498) [Link]
As to JFS and performance and barriers with XFS and ext4:I mentioned JFS as a "general purpose" filesystem, for example desktops, and random servers, in that it should have been the default instead of ext3 (which acquired barriers a bit late).
Anyhow on production servers I personally regard battery backup as essential, as barriers and/or disabling write caching both can have a huge impact, depending on workload.
The speed tests I have done and seen and that I trust are with barriers disabled and either batteries or write caching off, and with O_DIRECT (it is very difficult for me to like any file system test without O_DIRECT). I think these are fair conditions.
Part of the reason why barriers were added to ext3 (and at least initially they had horrible performance) and not JFS is that ext3 was chosen as the default filesystem and thus became community supported and JFS did not.
Improving ext4: bigalloc, inline data, and metadata checksums Posted Dec 3, 2011 1:56 UTC (Sat) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link]
Some battery-backed disk write caches can commit the RAM to flash storage or something else, on battery power, in the event that the power supply is removed for a long time. These systems don't need a large battery and provide stronger long-term guarantees.Even ignoring ext3's no barrier default, and LVM missing them for ages, there is the kernel I/O queue (elevator) which can reorder requests. If the filesystem issues barrier requests, the elevator will send writes to the storage device in the correct order. If you turn off barriers in the filesystem when mounting, the kernel elevator is free to send writes out of order; then after a system crash, the system recovery will find inconsistent data from the storage unit. This can happen even after a normal crash such as a kernel panic or hard-reboot, no power loss required.Whether that can happen when you tell the filesystem not to bother with barriers depends on the filesystem's implementation. To be honest, I don't know how ext3/4, xfs, btrfs etc. behave in that case. I always use barriers :-) Improving ext4: bigalloc, inline data, and metadata checksums Posted Dec 12, 2011 15:40 UTC (Mon) by andresfreund (subscriber, #69562) [Link]
ext3 was first supported by RHEL as of RHEL 2 which was released May 2003 --- and as you can see from the dates above, we had developers working at a wide range of companies, thus making it a communuty-supported distribution, long before Red Hat supported ext3 in their RHEL product. In contrast, most of the reiserfs developers worked at Namesys (with a one or two exceptions, most notably Chris Mason when he was at SuSE), and most of the XFS developers worked at SGI. Improving ext4: bigalloc, inline data, and metadata checksums Posted Dec 5, 2011 16:29 UTC (Mon) by wookey (guest, #5501) [Link]
JFS was a very good file system, and at the time when it was released, it certainly was better than ext3. But there's a lot more to having a successful open source project beyond having the best technology. The fact that ext2 was well understood, and had a mature set of file system utilities, including tools like "debugfs", are one of the things that do make a huge difference towards people accepting the technology.At this point, though, ext4 has a number of features which JFS lacks, including delayed allocation, fallocate, punch, and TRIM/discard support. These are all features which I'm sure JFS would have developed if it still had a development community, but when IBM decided to defund the project, there were few or no developers who were not IBM'ers, and so the project stalled out.---People who upgrade in place from ext3 to ext4 will see roughly half the performance increase compared to doing a backup, reformat to ext4, and restore operation. But they *do* see a performance increase if they do an upgrade-in-place operation. In fact, even if they don't upgrade the file system image, and use ext4 to mount an ext2 file system image, they will see some performance improvement. So this gives them flexibility, which from a system administrator's point of view, is very, very important!---Finally, I find it interesting that you consider OCFS2 "pretty good" in non-clustered mode. OCFS2 is a fork of the ext3 code base[1] (it even uses fs/jbd and now fs/jbd2) with support added for clustered operation, and with support for extents (which ext4 has as well, of course). It doesn't have delayed allocation. But ext4 will be better than ocfs2 in non-clustered mode, simply because it's been optimized for it. The fact that you seem to think OCFS2 to be "pretty good", while you don't seem to think much about ext4 makes me wondered if you have some pretty strong biases against the ext[234] file system family.[1] Ocfs2progs is also a fork of e2fsprogs. Which they did with my blessing, BTW. I'm glad to see that the code that has come out of the ext[234] project have been useful in so many places. Heck, parts of the e2fsprogs (the UUID library, which I relicensed to BSD for Apple's benefit) can be found in Mac OS X! :-) Improving ext4: bigalloc, inline data, and metadata checksums Posted Dec 1, 2011 20:25 UTC (Thu) by sniper (guest, #13219) [Link] 2ff7e9595c
Comments