On 8/5/09, leon zadorin <leonleo...@gmail.com> wrote: > In the examples of *corrupted* superblocks though there appears not to > be much difference -- i.e. "disk sectors hosting the starting > superblock being corrupted" vs "disk sectors hosting disklabel being > corrupted": both are irrecoverable (?)
Should probably phrased it differently a bit: In the examples of *corrupted* disk-sectors though there appears not to be much difference -- i.e. "disk sectors hosting superblocks being corrupted" vs "disk sectors hosting disklabel being corrupted... ...Perhaps there is a more likely chance for a superblock being corrupted by some s/w bug or activity as opposed to a disklabel being corrupted?
