> -Original Message-
> From: centos-boun...@centos.org
> [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf Of Chan Chung
> Hang Christopher
> Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 10:20
> To: CentOS mailing list
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] OT: Fortunate clueless dd chum - lvm
Robert Nichols wrote:
> Ross Walker wrote:
>
>> Since you don't know if LVM has a recovery path how can you imply it
>> doesn't?
>>
>
> I've seen plenty of evidence that tools for LVM recovery are lacking.
> I see postings from people asking about recovery of damaged LVM
> volumes and not
Lanny Marcus wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Kristopher
> Kane wrote:
>
I get to learn something new at his expense, (which is now just a scare)
nice successor eh? :-D
>> Maybe you could point him to this list for lunch time lesson reading,
>> however, you won'
Kristopher Kane wrote:
>>> I get to learn something new at his expense, (which is now just a scare)
>>> nice successor eh? :-D
>>>
>
> Maybe you could point him to this list for lunch time lesson reading,
> however, you won't be able to talk about him behind his back anymore.
>
Haha, I a
Ross Walker wrote:
>
> Since you don't know if LVM has a recovery path how can you imply it
> doesn't?
I've seen plenty of evidence that tools for LVM recovery are lacking.
I see postings from people asking about recovery of damaged LVM
volumes and not getting any reasonable answers about how t
On Aug 14, 2009, at 9:22 PM, Robert Nichols
wrote:
> Ross Walker wrote:
>> On Aug 14, 2009, at 12:48 PM, Robert Nichols
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ross Walker wrote:
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 5:00 AM, Chan Chung Hang
Christopher wrote:
Question now is, was the first sector of partition
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Kristopher
Kane wrote:
>>> I get to learn something new at his expense, (which is now just a scare)
>>> nice successor eh? :-D
>
> Maybe you could point him to this list for lunch time lesson reading,
> however, you won't be able to talk about him behind his back a
Ross Walker wrote:
> On Aug 14, 2009, at 12:48 PM, Robert Nichols
> wrote:
>
>> Ross Walker wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 5:00 AM, Chan Chung Hang
>>> Christopher wrote:
>>>
>>> Question now is, was the first sector of partition 1 damaged (was it
>>> 63 or 64 sectors dd'd)?
>>>
>>> If so i
On Aug 14, 2009, at 12:48 PM, Robert Nichols
wrote:
> Ross Walker wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 5:00 AM, Chan Chung Hang
>> Christopher wrote:
>>
>> Question now is, was the first sector of partition 1 damaged (was it
>> 63 or 64 sectors dd'd)?
>>
>> If so it will require a more tricky proc
Ross Walker wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 5:00 AM, Chan Chung Hang
> Christopher wrote:
>
> Question now is, was the first sector of partition 1 damaged (was it
> 63 or 64 sectors dd'd)?
>
> If so it will require a more tricky procedure to fix.
No, the ext2 file system does not use the first 1
> -Original Message-
> From: centos-boun...@centos.org
> [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf Of Ross Walker
> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 10:30
> To: CentOS mailing list
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] OT: Fortunate clueless dd chum - lvm recovery
>
> On F
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 5:00 AM, Chan Chung Hang
Christopher wrote:
>
>>
>> First of all, I would dd a copy of the whole drive off to another drive, so
>> you can have a few goes at this.
>>
>> How do you know only those bits where lost?
>>
>
> The dd command zeros the first 64 sectors, that is, t
>> I get to learn something new at his expense, (which is now just a scare)
>> nice successor eh? :-D
Maybe you could point him to this list for lunch time lesson reading,
however, you won't be able to talk about him behind his back anymore.
:-/
___
Cen
- Original Message
> From: Chan Chung Hang Christopher
> To: CentOS mailing list
> Sent: Friday, 14 August, 2009 10:00:41
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] OT: Fortunate clueless dd chum - lvm recovery
>
>
> >
> > First of all, I would dd a copy of the whole
>
> First of all, I would dd a copy of the whole drive off to another drive, so
> you can have a few goes at this.
>
> How do you know only those bits where lost?
>
The dd command zeros the first 64 sectors, that is, the mbr and then the
next 63 sectors which would the bootsector of the firs
- Original Message
> From: Chan Chung Hang Christopher
> To: CentOS mailing list
> Sent: Friday, 14 August, 2009 3:31:32
> Subject: [CentOS] OT: Fortunate clueless dd chum - lvm recovery
>
> Looks like the chum did not have to lose any data.
>
> Wiping out the MBR and the next 63 blo
Johnny Hughes wrote:
> Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote:
>
>> Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote:
>>
>>> Looks like the chum did not have to lose any data.
>>>
>>>
>> I cannot believe he actually tried to create a new filesystem on sda
>> according to the .bash_history file after
Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote:
> Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote:
>> Looks like the chum did not have to lose any data.
>>
> I cannot believe he actually tried to create a new filesystem on sda
> according to the .bash_history file after the dd commands. I think I
> need a titanium clueb
Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote:
> Looks like the chum did not have to lose any data.
>
I cannot believe he actually tried to create a new filesystem on sda
according to the .bash_history file after the dd commands. I think I
need a titanium clueby4. Anybody know where I can get one?
___
19 matches
Mail list logo
