Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #244850
| From | Yvan Masson <yvan@masson-informatique.fr> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.debian.user |
| Subject | Re: "mount -t ntfs" vs "mount.ntfs" ? |
| Date | 2022-01-31 11:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <DLCpY-2Oc-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <DKwZj-3ZC-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <DKCLo-7pX-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw
Le 28/01/2022 à 17:51, David Wright a écrit : > On Fri 28 Jan 2022 at 11:34:44 (+0100), Yvan Masson wrote: >> >> I had to recover a NTFS partition from a broken drive (I used GNU >> ddrescue with a domain log file generated by partclone), so I now have >> a file "recovered_partition.img": >> >> $ file recovered_partition.img >> recovered_partition.img: DOS/MBR boot sector, code offset 0x52+2, >> OEM-ID "NTFS ", sectors/cluster 8, Media descriptor 0xf8, >> sectors/track 63, heads 255, hidden sectors 567296, dos < 4.0 >> BootSector (0x80), FAT (1Y bit by descriptor); NTFS, sectors/track 63, >> sectors 1917202431, $MFT start cluster 786432, $MFTMirror start >> cluster 2, bytes/RecordSegment 2^(-1*246), clusters/index block 1, >> serial number 0606854f86854cf02; contains bootstrap BOOTMGR >> >> If I use `mount -t ntfs`, it fails: >> >> $ sudo mount -t ntfs recovered_partition.img /mnt/ >> Failed to read last sector (1917202430): Argument invalide >> HINTS: Either the volume is a RAID/LDM but it wasn't setup yet, >> or it was not setup correctly (e.g. by not using mdadm --build ...), >> or a wrong device is tried to be mounted, >> or the partition table is corrupt (partition is smaller than NTFS), >> or the NTFS boot sector is corrupt (NTFS size is not valid). >> Failed to mount '/dev/loop0': Argument invalide >> The device '/dev/loop0' doesn't seem to have a valid NTFS. >> Maybe the wrong device is used? Or the whole disk instead of a >> partition (e.g. /dev/sda, not /dev/sda1)? Or the other way around? >> >> However, it works perfectly with `mount.ntfs`: >> >> $ sudo mount.ntfs recovered_partition.img /mnt/sshfs/ >> Metadata kept in Windows cache, refused to mount. >> Falling back to read-only mount because the NTFS partition is in an >> unsafe state. Please resume and shutdown Windows fully (no hibernation >> or fast restarting.) >> Could not mount read-write, trying read-only >> >> Could it be because `mount` uses kernel driver and `mount.ntfs` uses >> ntfs-3g, and that the latter has better "quality" even for read-only? >> (Note that this sentence is a complete guess) > > Perhaps it's worth perusing: > > https://superuser.com/questions/139452/kernel-ntfs-driver-vs-ntfs-3g > https://www.paragon-software.com/us/home/ntfs3-driver-faq/ > > I'm not sure what "quality" means here. One would hope that files > would yield the same contents regardless of which driver is used, > allowing for whatever your "broken" means, and for the failure to > shutdown Windows cleanly. > > Cheers, > David. > Thanks for the links, I missed that NTF3 was already included in the kernel I use (from Debian testing). So in my case ntfs3g is able to mount a rescued partition, while NTFS3 is not (thanks Andrei for confirming what I supposed): this means that in some cases, NTFS3 is not as mature as ntfs3g. Regards, Yvan
Back to linux.debian.user | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
"mount -t ntfs" vs "mount.ntfs" ? Yvan Masson <yvan@masson-informatique.fr> - 2022-01-28 11:50 +0100
Re: "mount -t ntfs" vs "mount.ntfs" ? Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2022-01-28 17:50 +0100
Re: "mount -t ntfs" vs "mount.ntfs" ? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2022-01-28 18:00 +0100
Re: "mount -t ntfs" vs "mount.ntfs" ? Yvan Masson <yvan@masson-informatique.fr> - 2022-01-31 11:50 +0100
Re: "mount -t ntfs" vs "mount.ntfs" ? Michael Stone <mstone@debian.org> - 2022-01-31 16:30 +0100
Re: "mount -t ntfs" vs "mount.ntfs" ? Yvan Masson <yvan@masson-informatique.fr> - 2022-01-31 18:00 +0100
Re: "mount -t ntfs" vs "mount.ntfs" ? Christian Britz <cbritz@t-online.de> - 2022-01-31 18:10 +0100
Re: "mount -t ntfs" vs "mount.ntfs" ? Yvan Masson <yvan@masson-informatique.fr> - 2022-02-01 13:50 +0100
Re: "mount -t ntfs" vs "mount.ntfs" ? Tixy <tixy@yxit.co.uk> - 2022-02-01 14:30 +0100
Re: "mount -t ntfs" vs "mount.ntfs" ? Yvan Masson <yvan@masson-informatique.fr> - 2022-02-01 18:10 +0100
Re: "mount -t ntfs" vs "mount.ntfs" ? Tixy <tixy@yxit.co.uk> - 2022-02-01 20:30 +0100
Re: "mount -t ntfs" vs "mount.ntfs" ? Yvan Masson <yvan@masson-informatique.fr> - 2022-02-02 11:20 +0100
Re: "mount -t ntfs" vs "mount.ntfs" ? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2022-02-02 18:10 +0100
csiph-web