ozzyboy, on 17 February 2010 - 07:48 AM, said:
WOW!!I don't belive it. This is Greath!!
Mission Acomplishied!! Thank's a lot jaclaz!!!
I want to know how did you repair my sectors. Can you explain me all procedures, tools...here on pm...I want to learn to do this by my self, off course if is not a secret !!!
Again thank you very very much, for all your time lost with me.
Good to know we have yet another happy bunny.
http://www.msfn.org/...ic=128727&st=10
Basically:
the only two problems your partition apparently had were:
- wrong partition ID in partition table (06, aka "DOS" FAT 16 CHS mapped instead of 07 HPFS/NTFS)
- missing (wiped or filled with 00's) first sector of the NTFS bootsector
And a third one (which is you lied

as that partition was originally created under Vista or 2008 or Windows7 - or however, it's bootsector was later modified by MBRFIX.exe or bootrec.exe, or a similar tool in order to invoke BOOTMGR instead of the NT/2K/XP/2003 NTLDR).
Vista and later, unless a Registry fix to make them behave like previous OS, create a partition "aligned to 1 Mb", for a number of reasons you may want to read/learn reading here:
http://www.boot-land...wtopic=9897&hl=
In ther words, while NT/2K/XP/2003 normally create a set represesenting a whole cylinder of hidden sectors (63) Vista and later create a set of 2048 of them.
(2048*512=1,048,576 =1 Mb)
The first sector after the hidden sector is the bootsector, in this case 2048+1=2049 <this is why I wanted to have a look at first2049.bin, and of course 2049*512=1,049,088
Since last sector of first2049.bin was made of all 00's, I asked you to produce the first5000.bin, in order to check whether that a bunch of sectors after the 2049th werer blank as well or contained some data.
The actual "whole" bootsector on a NTFS filesystem is actually 16 sectors long, so I could have asked you to produce 2048+16=2064 first2064.bin or, at the most, to check some other 100 sectors, a first2164.bin, but 5000 is a nice, round number, and allowed me to check also for some other things (since the partition ID was definitely "wrong" and you had already lied to me

it was possible that the partition was actually a logical volume inside extended and that the missing 2049th sector was - instead of being a bootsector and EPBR, in which case the actuall bootsector may have been another 1 Mb further in the disk).
For a quick reference of what an EPBR is, read this oldish, but still useful partition primer:
http://www.ranish.com/part/primer.htm
With first5000.bin in my hands I could check that 2050th sector was actually the second sector of a NTFS "Vista" bootsector, and that the following sectors made sense.
So, since the LBA partition data in the MBR StartLBA=2048 appeared correct, I assumed that also the NumSectors=234436608 were also correct.
If the above was true, the partition should have ended at LBA 2048+234436608=234438656.
From the output of your initial dsfo command, I knew that the whole disk was 120034099200 bytes, i.e. 120034099200/512=234441600 sectors.
Now, 234438656-234441600=-2944 so the partition should have ended 2944 sectors before the end of the drive.
NTFS has a "failsafe" mechanism that creates a copy of the bootsector of the partition at the end of it.
So, I could well have asked you for 2944+1=2945 last2945.bin, and check if the first sector of it was actaully a first sector of a NTFS bootsector, but since I already had mentioned a nice, round number of 5000, I asked you for a last5000.bin.
I found the bootsector where i expected it, at offset -2945 sectors, and simply copied it and pasted over 2049th sector of first2049mod.bin (a copy of first2049.bin), then modified the partition ID in first sector of first2049mod.bin from 06 to 07.
Checked if the data in the "new" bootsector made sense with the data in the parition table, and posted it.
Tools used:
TinyHexer
Structure viewers by
jaclaz:
http://www.boot-land...?showtopic=8734
Knowledge needed:
(first and last point will take some time )
But no secrets and no magic tricks, only some smoke and mirrors.
jaclaz
This post has been edited by jaclaz: 17 February 2010 - 10:14 AM