(Sorry, Douglas, I didn't mean to send this directly to you, I just
realized that's what I did the first time. I need to find out if I can
tell Thunderbird to 'prefer' replying to the list instead of the user
when I click 'Reply')
Douglas Tutty wrote:
> Keep in mind that block errors from fsck won't refer to physical blocks
> on the drive but extants on the LV which in turn are blocks on the md
> when then are blocks on the drive. Any of those layers failing will
> give you fsck errors.
I tried checking some version-differences.
mental:~# cryptsetup --version
cryptsetup-luks 1.0.4
mental:~# chroot /mnt/oldroot/ cryptsetup --version
cryptsetup-luks 1.0.4
mental:~# dmsetup --version
Library version: 1.02.08 (2006-07-17)
Driver version: 4.7.0
mental:~# chroot /mnt/oldroot dmsetup --version
Library version: 1.02.12 (2006-10-13)
Driver version: 4.7.0
mental:~# lvm version
LVM version: 2.02.07 (2006-07-17)
Library version: 1.02.08 (2006-07-17)
Driver version: 4.7.0
mental:~# chroot /mnt/oldroot sbin/lvm version
LVM version: 2.02.07 (2006-07-17)
Library version: 1.02.12 (2006-10-13)
Driver version: 4.7.0
Now, I'm guessing Driver version can't be looked at (since it's using
the same kernel, I guess that's the devicemapper-version?) and 'LVM
version' on lvm seems to be the version of lvm in the kernel, so same
goes for it. But other than that, it seems my "outdated" unstable still
was newer than my testing, atleast by a little. Damn. :(
Guess I'll have to try setting up UML and seeing if I can access it when
I boot that.
> If the drives have S.M.A.R.T. then install smartmontools and check out
> the drives themselves.
I'll try that, thanks. :-)
> Good luck.
Guess I'll need it. :-(
Kindest regards, Jørgen.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
