On 10/27/05, Dave Kleikamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
About hardware, the hard drive is a Western digital WD1600 which is around 18 months old. It is connected to a highpoint hpt100 raid controller (intigrated into the motherboard). However hardware raid has been disabled so it is basically functioning as a standard ata controller. Also on this controller are 2 western digital WD800 drives, which are running software raid 0. The WD1600 and one of the WD800's are sharing an ide channel. The WD1600 (our problem drive) is the master. I have tried running fsck with the drive connected to a diffrent motherboard and using diiffrent cables with basically the same results. I will check about messages to dmesg tomorrow.
On Thu, 2005-10-27 at 17:11 -0400, Eric Gharakhanian wrote:
>
> I have tried multiple versions of jfsutils (including 1.1.8) using
> various live cds and also by compiling diffrent versions on my server
> box to no avail. Whenever you have the time, any help you give will
> be appreciated.
Okay. I just asked about older versions since I noticed you were
running 1.1.10, which is brand new, and I suspected something new.
The addresses fsck is attempting to read from look reasonable, based on
the number of blocks in the file system as reported.
I haven't seen a problem like yours. What kind of hardware is this
running on? There are no messages to dmesg when fsck is run, are there?
--
David Kleikamp
IBM Linux Technology Center
About hardware, the hard drive is a Western digital WD1600 which is around 18 months old. It is connected to a highpoint hpt100 raid controller (intigrated into the motherboard). However hardware raid has been disabled so it is basically functioning as a standard ata controller. Also on this controller are 2 western digital WD800 drives, which are running software raid 0. The WD1600 and one of the WD800's are sharing an ide channel. The WD1600 (our problem drive) is the master. I have tried running fsck with the drive connected to a diffrent motherboard and using diiffrent cables with basically the same results. I will check about messages to dmesg tomorrow.
