On 10/26/07, Jake Conk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If the filesystem is screwed up then shouldn't the raid just ignore it
and run on 1 disk until I fix the problem? That seems like the
logical thing it should do unless all my mirrors of /var are messed
up.
No, raid doesn't do that.
Let's assum
On 10/26/07, Jake Conk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/25/07, Francesco Toscan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 2007/10/26, Jake Conk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I was trying to restart my server and noticed it wasn't coming back
> > > online so when I went down to go take a look
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 01:06:48AM -0700, Jake Conk wrote:
> If the filesystem is screwed up then shouldn't the raid just ignore it
> and run on 1 disk until I fix the problem? That seems like the
> logical thing it should do
RAIDframe doesn't have *anything* to do with a filesystem data
corr
On 10/25/07, Francesco Toscan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2007/10/26, Jake Conk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I was trying to restart my server and noticed it wasn't coming back
> > online so when I went down to go take a look at it I was having a RAID
> > problem. This is what was showi
2007/10/26, Jake Conk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hello,
>
> I was trying to restart my server and noticed it wasn't coming back
> online so when I went down to go take a look at it I was having a RAID
> problem. This is what was showing on the screen:
>
> ...
> PARTIALLY TRUNCATED INODE I=720
> THE FOL
Hello,
I was trying to restart my server and noticed it wasn't coming back
online so when I went down to go take a look at it I was having a RAID
problem. This is what was showing on the screen:
...
PARTIALLY TRUNCATED INODE I=720
THE FOLLOWING SYSTEM HAD AN UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY:
ffs: /r
6 matches
Mail list logo
