gpart
open-sourceThe section your link pointed to isn't on gpart's page any more, so we've brought you to the top.
Scans a damaged MBR-partitioned disk to guess and reconstruct lost partition tables by detecting filesystem signatures.
Summary
gpart is an open-source command-line tool that scans a damaged PC hard disk sector by sector and guesses where its MBR partitions used to be, using built-in modules that recognize filesystem signatures like FAT, NTFSNTFSThe default file system format for Windows, developed by Microsoft, storing files with rich metadata and access controls; cyber tools target it to parse artifacts like timestamps, alternate data streams, and the MFT., ext2, XFS, BtrFS, and LVM. It costs nothing to use and runs directly against a device or disk image, with options for verbose or quiet output, interactive confirmation of each guess, and a full scan mode that checks every sector rather than skipping ahead. It is aimed at forensic examiners and data-recovery practitioners dealing with corrupted partition tables rather than routine disk management. Development is old but stable: first committed in 2013, with 7 contributors and no commits in the past year.
Scans a damaged MBR-partitioned disk to guess and reconstruct lost partition tables by detecting filesystem signatures.
How gpart helps
Where did my partitions go after the table on this disk got wiped or corrupted?
walks the device sector by sector and asks each filesystem-signature module whether it recognizes a partition start there, then reports the offsets it finds
Which filesystem type was sitting in each of these lost partitions?
matches sector contents against its built-in signature modules for FAT, NTFS, ext2, XFS, BtrFS, LVM and others, and names the type behind each guess
Can I trust each guessed partition before I commit to rebuilding the table?
with interactive mode on, it pauses at every candidate and asks for confirmation instead of silently assuming the guess is right
Did the scan skip over a partition hiding inside the space of another?
a full scan checks every sector instead of jumping to the end of the last found partition, catching entries a faster pass would miss
Am I scanning a raw disk or a plain image file, and does that change what it can detect?
when geometry can't be read from the OS, such as with a disk image rather than a live device, it can be told to skip that lookup and work from the file's contents alone
How much detail do I get about why it guessed a given offset is a partition?
verbosity can be raised repeatedly to show the reasoning behind each match, or silenced entirely with output redirected only to a logfile
Languages
Command line
| option | found in | since | description |
|---|
Values are placeholders taken from each option’s declared default. Nothing is executed here — the output shown is a recording of a run that already happened.
Score card
-
Shipping velocity releases a month, last 12 months
-
Documentation quality release-notes rubric, 0–100
-
Breaking-change discipline how rarely a release breaks users, and notice given
-
Maintenance risk quiet time against its own cadence, maintainers
-
Innovation & surface new capabilities, API and MCP surface
- Community health
-
Contributor trend distinct committers, this year against last
-
Maintainer concentration bus factor now against a year ago
-
Issue backlog trend issues closed per issue opened, 12 months
-
Responsiveness median time to a maintainer’s first reply
Nine scores for gpart, each built from the releases, notes and API history this site tracks — and, on Researcher and Business, where it stands among every measured tool in its category and how that has moved.
Score cards are part of every paid plan.
See plans → Already subscribed? Sign in →Trajectory
Blank means never measured; nothing here is a filled-in zero.
Peer standings are included with Researcher and Business. See how this tool ranks against its competitors, using data we don't publish anywhere else.
See plans →Each score is 0–100 on a published rubric, derived from data this site already shows. A dimension we cannot measure says so — it is never scored 0 and never enters a rank.
How this is scored
- Shipping velocity — releases a month over the last 12 months, on a log scale where 16 a month scores 100. Needs 3 releases in the window.
- Documentation quality — the release-notes rubric published on the analytics page, unchanged.
- Breaking-change discipline — the share of releases carrying a breaking change (none scores 100, half or more scores 0). Only projects that label breaking changes are measured: a clean record cannot be told from an unlabelled one.
- Maintenance risk — quiet time measured against the tool's own release cadence (quiet longer than 90 days and three typical gaps scores 0), plus the number of active maintainers and whether contributors are growing, where known. Higher is lower risk.
- Innovation & surface — new capabilities in the feature ledger this year, API and MCP operations added, and the share of commits that are features: the mean of whichever we hold.
- Community health (open-source tools only) — each is a direction, not a size: contributors this year against last, the bus factor now against a year ago, and issues closed per issue opened, where steady scores 50, doubled 100 and halved 0; plus the median time to a maintainer's first reply (an hour scores about 100, a month or more 0). A commercial card has no repository and carries none of the four.
- Documented delivery (commercial tools) — when a vendor's documented new capabilities have slowed against its own baseline, that counts against the overall standing as heavily as two low dimensions. Steady delivery, or too little history to judge, leaves the standing alone; it is never a sixth score.
- Open-source tools are scored on repository signals; commercial tools on their published changelog. Ranks compare tools within one category and one profile and need at least five measured peers; the overall standing needs three ranked dimensions. Best-in-breed or consolidator is a shape, not a quality, and is never scored.
Release-note detail over time
See how much detail gpart puts in its release notes, quarter by quarter, and compare it with tracked tools in the same category. This history uses up to ten retained, reviewed notes per tool; sparse or blank older quarters may reflect that limit.
Checking release-note history…
Releases
Nothing shipped since we started watching. Releases and docs updates land here as they happen.
Project health
Issue, contributor and maintainer activity in baruch/gpart, 2023-10 – 2026-09, as of 2026-09-25. Twelve-month figures first; the trend lines run the whole window.
- Contributors 0 ±0 vs prior 12 months
- Maintainers 0 +0 joined · −0 left, last 12 months
- Bus factor 0 committers behind half the commits
- Community-filed not measured of issues opened, last 12 months
- Median time to close not measured issues closed, last 12 months
- Open backlog 6 of 11 issues ever filed
- Issues opened / month 0 · 0 communitymaintainers
- Open backlog 6
- Contributors / month 0
- Commits / month 0
- Stars 31
Counts from the project's public repository and git history; no individuals are identified. Maintainers are the committers covering 80% of the last year's commits. how we measure this
Libraries its release ships
What its latest release locks, checked against known advisories.None of its release's images build from a lockfile we can read.
Add the badge to your README
Maintain this project? The badge links readers straight to this page, so they can follow every release here.
Choose a badge style and copy the code →