> The RAID superblock is at the end of the filesystem, to avoid any
> conflicts with the filesystem superblock.
It can be either at the start, at the end or even 4K into the device,
depending on which format (metadata revision) is used. In this case I
suppose it's 0.90, which is stored at the begi
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 09:10:41 +0100, Andrea Conti wrote:
> > Agreed, however Iain also said that he tried to mount individual
> > partitions and this failed. This should work with RAID1
>
> Only if you force the filesystem type (i.e. mount -t xxx, or use
> mount.xxx directly).
Not in my experie
On Sat, 2010-02-20 at 16:22 +0100, Andrea Conti wrote:
> AFAICT this is all you need to know -- you definitely have two software
> (mdraid) RAID 1 volumes:
>
> md100 with hda2, hde2 and hdg2 as members
> md101 with hda5, hde5 and hdg5 as members
>
> Both arrays seem to have lost a member (I gues
> Agreed, however Iain also said that he tried to mount individual
> partitions and this failed. This should work with RAID1
Only if you force the filesystem type (i.e. mount -t xxx, or use
mount.xxx directly).
However, while I know this works with ext2/ext3/ext4, I have no idea if
xfs is also sm
On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 16:22:51 +0100, Andrea Conti wrote:
> > md: bind
> > md: bind
> > md: bind
> > raid1: raid set md101 active with 3 out of 4 mirrors
>
> AFAICT this is all you need to know -- you definitely have two software
> (mdraid) RAID 1 volumes:
Agreed, however Iain also said that he
> md: bind
> md: bind
> md: bind
> raid1: raid set md100 active with 3 out of 4 mirrors
> md: bind
> md: bind
> md: bind
> raid1: raid set md101 active with 3 out of 4 mirrors
AFAICT this is all you need to know -- you definitely have two software
(mdraid) RAID 1 volumes:
md100 with hda2, hde2 a
On Sat, 2010-02-20 at 13:39 +, Stroller wrote:
> On 20 Feb 2010, at 04:31, Iain Buchanan wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 14:44 +, Stroller wrote:
> >> On 19 Feb 2010, at 12:15, Iain Buchanan wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>> Can I randomly mount partitions read-only or will this screw
> >>> thin
On 20 Feb 2010, at 04:31, Iain Buchanan wrote:
On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 14:44 +, Stroller wrote:
On 19 Feb 2010, at 12:15, Iain Buchanan wrote:
...
Can I randomly mount partitions read-only or will this screw
things up
further?
If this is unsafe I will have ketchup & mustard on my baseb
On Saturday 20 February 2010 06:29:03 Iain Buchanan wrote:
> so it looks like there's some problems with hdc. Are there any disk
> hardware testing tools on the gentoo minimal live cd?
If you want to check the disk use sys-apps/smartmontools, but this problem may
be a fs corruption - which coul
On Sat, 2010-02-20 at 14:01 +0930, Iain Buchanan wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 14:44 +, Stroller wrote:
> > On 19 Feb 2010, at 12:15, Iain Buchanan wrote:
> > > ...
> > > Can I randomly mount partitions read-only or will this screw things up
> > > further?
OK, I've randomly mounted partitions
On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 14:44 +, Stroller wrote:
> On 19 Feb 2010, at 12:15, Iain Buchanan wrote:
> > ...
> > Can I randomly mount partitions read-only or will this screw things up
> > further?
>
> If this is unsafe I will have ketchup & mustard on my baseball cap.
er... could you translate tha
On 19 Feb 2010, at 12:15, Iain Buchanan wrote:
...
Can I randomly mount partitions read-only or will this screw things up
further?
If this is unsafe I will have ketchup & mustard on my baseball cap.
Stroller.
Hi all,
I'm trying to recover some data from and old Snap Server 4200 (c2003)
belonging to a local charity. It has 4 80Gb IDE drives, and runs some
sort of Linux kernel with their (snap's) own applications on top.
It won't boot to the Snap OS (Guardian OS 3.1.079 - quite an old one,
major versio
13 matches
Mail list logo
