Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 23:19:40 -0500 (EST) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <grog@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Baldur Gislason <baldur@gremlin.foo.is> Subject: Re: Vinum, concatenated volumes and dead drives Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040216231747.82890J-100000@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <20040217020034.GZ33797@wantadilla.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > I've never tried it, but I suspect that fsck would have a hard time > recreating the file system if any sizeable chunk is missing. In > general, I'd expect that you lose your file system under these > circumstances. I've run into a number of situations where fsck is unable to recover from catastrophic loss, such as wholesale stamping of zero's over the alternative superblock and meta-data. Under those circumstances, newfs is a lot easier to use than fsck. Our kernel implementation makes fairly strong assumptions about the correctness of on-disk contents, and is not resilient to some of the nastier failure modes associated with zeroing (losing) large chunks of meta-data, and I've also found fsdb doesn't like them much either (especially when you have a broken first alternate superblock). Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects robert@fledge.watson.org Senior Research Scientist, McAfee Research
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040216231747.82890J-100000>