On Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at 11:57:11PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at 11:53:56PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at 02:12:44PM -0500, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > 1) The corruption always takes the form of a 4k aligned page of zeros
>
Brent Fulgham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 6) If you have a corrupt filesystem, and shut it down sanely, and then
> >fsck it, fsck reports no errors. (In other words, the corruption
> >is not associated with block map errors or such.)
> Not true. I see fsck errors fairly frequently
On Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at 11:53:56PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at 02:12:44PM -0500, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > 1) The corruption always takes the form of a 4k aligned page of zeros
> >showing up.
>
> Unfortunately, no. The 4096 size is common in normal
On Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at 12:05:47PM -0800, Brent Fulgham wrote:
>
> One interesting side-note is that the corruption seems to be limited to
> the "ext2fs.static" server. My understanding is that ext2fs.static is used
> for the root partition, but the "dynamic" ext2fs is used for all other
> mount
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 06, 2000 at 02:12:44PM -0500, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> 1) The corruption always takes the form of a 4k aligned page of zeros
>showing up.
Unfortunately, no. The 4096 size is common in normal operation, but untar of
gcc gives 3*1024 size block, and I also saw one 2048 siz
>
> I'm going to attempt some source staring;
And there was much rejoicing in the streets ;-)
> if someone could confirm or deny the following assertions (and add
> appropriate additional information), that would help me.
>
> 1) The corruption always takes the form of a 4k aligned page of
I'm going to attempt some source staring; if someone could confirm or
deny the following assertions (and add appropriate additional
information), that would help me.
1) The corruption always takes the form of a 4k aligned page of zeros
showing up.
2) The corruption does not happen to directo