Re: e2fsck /dev/md0 issues

2008-12-21 Thread M.Lewis
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: On Sunday 2008 December 21 15:00:44 Alex Samad wrote: On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 03:44:04AM -0600, M.Lewis wrote: Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: On Sunday 21 December 2008, "M.Lewis" wrote about 'Re: e2fsck /dev/md0 issues': Maybe what I sh

Re: e2fsck /dev/md0 issues

2008-12-21 Thread Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
On Sunday 2008 December 21 15:00:44 Alex Samad wrote: > On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 03:44:04AM -0600, M.Lewis wrote: > > Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > >> On Sunday 21 December 2008, "M.Lewis" wrote about > >> 'Re: e2fsck /dev/md0 issues': > >&

Re: e2fsck /dev/md0 issues

2008-12-21 Thread Alex Samad
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 03:44:04AM -0600, M.Lewis wrote: > > Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: >> On Sunday 21 December 2008, "M.Lewis" wrote about >> 'Re: e2fsck /dev/md0 issues': >>> Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: >> >>> Maybe what I sho

Re: e2fsck /dev/md0 issues

2008-12-21 Thread subscriptions
On Sun, 2008-12-21 at 05:42 +0100, M.Lewis wrote: > > I having an issue with my RAID array. I get some errors on boot, but the > boot process is going beyond them and mounting the drive anyhow. So far > as I can tell, all the data is present and readable. I would like to > resolve these errors tho

Re: e2fsck /dev/md0 issues

2008-12-21 Thread M.Lewis
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: On Sunday 21 December 2008, "M.Lewis" wrote about 'Re: e2fsck /dev/md0 issues': Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: Maybe what I should do is break the array and start over? Making sure that e2fsck on both drives is good to go beforehand of cour

Re: e2fsck /dev/md0 issues

2008-12-21 Thread Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
On Sunday 21 December 2008, "M.Lewis" wrote about 'Re: e2fsck /dev/md0 issues': >Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: >> I assume that /dev/md0 knows it's size, so the filesystem superblock is >> bad and you should correct it by resizing the filesystem. > &g

Re: e2fsck /dev/md0 issues

2008-12-21 Thread M.Lewis
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: On Sunday 2008 December 21 01:02:04 M.Lewis wrote: Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: On Saturday 2008 December 20 22:42:10 M.Lewis wrote: The filesystem size (according to the superblock) is 24419 blocks ^^^

Re: e2fsck /dev/md0 issues

2008-12-20 Thread Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
On Sunday 2008 December 21 01:02:04 M.Lewis wrote: > Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > > On Saturday 2008 December 20 22:42:10 M.Lewis wrote: > >> The filesystem size (according to the superblock) is 24419 blocks > > > >^ > > > >> Th

Re: e2fsck /dev/md0 issues

2008-12-20 Thread M.Lewis
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: On Saturday 2008 December 20 22:42:10 M.Lewis wrote: The filesystem size (according to the superblock) is 24419 blocks ^ The physical size of the device is 244189984 blocks

Re: e2fsck /dev/md0 issues

2008-12-20 Thread Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
On Saturday 2008 December 20 22:42:10 M.Lewis wrote: > The filesystem size (according to the superblock) is 24419 blocks ^ > The physical size of the device is 244189984 blocks ^ 2441900

e2fsck /dev/md0 issues

2008-12-20 Thread M.Lewis
I having an issue with my RAID array. I get some errors on boot, but the boot process is going beyond them and mounting the drive anyhow. So far as I can tell, all the data is present and readable. I would like to resolve these errors though. I'm not sure if it matters, but LVM is not install