On Jul 20 2007 07:35, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 08:13:03AM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
As always, a good friend of mine managed to scratch my partion table by
cat'ing /dev/full into /dev/sda. I was able to push him out of the way, but
at least the first 100MB are gone. I can
On 20 Jul 2007, at 06:13, Al Boldi wrote:
As always, a good friend of mine managed to scratch my partion
table by
cat'ing /dev/full into /dev/sda. I was able to push him out of the
way, but
at least the first 100MB are gone. I can probably live without the
first
partion, but there are
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, J. Hart wrote:
Justin Piszcz wrote:
Any reason you are using 2.6.19-rc5? Why not use 2.6.22.(1)?
I just wanted to try to understand the reason for the problem before changing
to a new kernel. I had not heard that any such problem had been encountered,
though I
Jeffrey V. Merkey wrote:
Al Boldi wrote:
As always, a good friend of mine managed to scratch my partion table by
cat'ing /dev/full into /dev/sda. I was able to push him out of the way,
but at least the first 100MB are gone. I can probably live without the
first partion, but there are many
Dave Young wrote:
On 7/20/07, Al Boldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As always, a good friend of mine managed to scratch my partion table by
cat'ing /dev/full into /dev/sda. I was able to push him out of the way,
but
/dev/null ?
at least the first 100MB are gone. I can probably live
James Lamanna wrote:
On 7/19/07, Al Boldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As always, a good friend of mine managed to scratch my partion table by
cat'ing /dev/full into /dev/sda. I was able to push him out of the way,
but at least the first 100MB are gone. I can probably live without the
first
Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
On Fri, 2007-07-20 14:29:34 +0300, Al Boldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But, I want something much more automated. And the partition table
backup per partition entry isn't really a bad idea.
That's called `gpart'.
Oh, gpart is great, but if we had a backup copy of
On 07/20/2007 02:22 PM, Al Boldi wrote:
Oh, gpart is great, but if we had a backup copy of the partition table on
every partition location on disk, then this backup copy could easily be
reused to reconstruct the original partition table without further
searching.
As long as you don't reboot
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 03:22:17PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
Oh, gpart is great, but if we had a backup copy of the partition table on
every partition location on disk, then this backup copy could easily be
reused to reconstruct the original partition table without further
searching. Just
Justin Piszcz wrote:
I (normally) do not run -rcX release and I always compile in RAID
support and have not seen that issue; then again, I did not try
2.6.19-rc5 that I can remember.
I've just discovered the problem (at 1 am of course).
I'm using Linux with my own custom kernel running on a
Dear all,
First I'd like to thank you for the great work you've done with mdadm.
It's flexible, powerful and reasonably easy to use.
I have a question that seems both important for the redundancy of my RAID6
devices and too sharp for me, my friends and the newsgroup
fr.comp.stockage . I think
On Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 07:54:54PM +0200, Seb wrote:
But the number of blocks cannot be imposed when creating a partition,
only the number of cylinders.
If you hit u in fdisk then you can create partitions by sector rather
than by cylinder.
HTH,
Robin
--
___
( ' }
On Friday July 20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could you tell me if such a mechanism exists in mdadm?
Or should I accept the loss of the 150 GB?
When you give mdadm a collection of drives to turn into a RAID array,
use bases the size of the array on the smallest device.
You might want to make
13 matches
Mail list logo
