Data Recovery from ReiserFS RAID Array?

Ruatha asks: "We've recently had a problem with a ReiserFS RAID-5 array - two of the disks failed and, of course, some of the people using the array didn't have backups of their data...Ontrack have returned the disks because they can do nothing with them due to the FS we used on the array. Does anyone know of a company that can deal with data recovery from a ReiserFS RAID-5 array?"

Comments

Re:Responsibility

[foobar104]

Repeat after me, please: The purpose of IT is to help users, not the other way around.

If an employee at this worthy's company lost data, it is the responsibility of the IT department to attempt to recover that data, within reason. That's what the IT department is for. This is a sensitive subject to me, because the IT department at my company closed down the IMAP port on our firewall tonight for what they called "security reasons," despite the fact that (1) we've been running IMAP over that connection for years now, and (2) the connection is encrypted with SSL. It literally took my yelling into the ear of the CTO over the phone, after calling him at home late in the evening, to get this problem fixed. The pervasive attitude of indignant hostility from IT departments in all sorts of industries is really starting to burn me up.

If you worked for me in my IT department, and one of your RAIDs failed, and I had un-backed-up data on it, the only answer I'd want to hear from you is, "Yes, sir, we'll do the best we can and get right back to you." If I even heard a hint from you of the "you were irresponsible so it's not my problem" vein that you showed in your post, you'd find yourself being escorted out of the building carrying your stuff in a cardboard box. And we'd expect you to return the box.

So just keep repeating it to yourself: The purpose of IT is to help users, not the other way around.

Re: Responsibility

[digitalmuse]

so users who shirk defined job responsibilities can foist the blame onto their unknowing IT departments?
I find that pill a little hard to swallow. I would however examine the chain of decisions that allowed the implementation of what would appear to be an 'unsupported' FS for what is valuable, if not critical data.

Note: Now I know that ReiserFS is an actual standard with a vocal and dedicated following, and it servers a useful purpose being a journaling alternative to ext3. But if it cannot be accomodated in your disaster recovery plan, it would have to be considered 'unsupported' against that measure.

All in all, I would have to agree that the critical misstep was in the bailwick of IT, but I would hesitate to call it a failure in execution, it was a failure in planning, which has deeper roots in project management and communication.

But hey, someone's gonna burn some oil trying to get back those numbers. good luck to the original poster.