> -Original Message-
> From: centos-boun...@centos.org
> [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf Of Chan Chung
> Hang Christopher
> Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 10:20
> To: CentOS mailing list
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] OT: Fortunate clueless dd chum - lvm
Robert Nichols wrote:
> Ross Walker wrote:
>
>> Since you don't know if LVM has a recovery path how can you imply it
>> doesn't?
>>
>
> I've seen plenty of evidence that tools for LVM recovery are lacking.
> I see postings from people asking about recovery of damaged LVM
> volumes and not
Lanny Marcus wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Kristopher
> Kane wrote:
>
I get to learn something new at his expense, (which is now just a scare)
nice successor eh? :-D
>> Maybe you could point him to this list for lunch time lesson reading,
>> however, you won'
Kristopher Kane wrote:
>>> I get to learn something new at his expense, (which is now just a scare)
>>> nice successor eh? :-D
>>>
>
> Maybe you could point him to this list for lunch time lesson reading,
> however, you won't be able to talk about him behind his back anymore.
>
Haha, I a
Ross Walker wrote:
>
> Since you don't know if LVM has a recovery path how can you imply it
> doesn't?
I've seen plenty of evidence that tools for LVM recovery are lacking.
I see postings from people asking about recovery of damaged LVM
volumes and not getting any reasonable answers about how t
On Aug 14, 2009, at 9:22 PM, Robert Nichols
wrote:
> Ross Walker wrote:
>> On Aug 14, 2009, at 12:48 PM, Robert Nichols
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ross Walker wrote:
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 5:00 AM, Chan Chung Hang
Christopher wrote:
Question now is, was the first sector of partition
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Kristopher
Kane wrote:
>>> I get to learn something new at his expense, (which is now just a scare)
>>> nice successor eh? :-D
>
> Maybe you could point him to this list for lunch time lesson reading,
> however, you won't be able to talk about him behind his back a
Ross Walker wrote:
> On Aug 14, 2009, at 12:48 PM, Robert Nichols
> wrote:
>
>> Ross Walker wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 5:00 AM, Chan Chung Hang
>>> Christopher wrote:
>>>
>>> Question now is, was the first sector of partition 1 damaged (was it
>>> 63 or 64 sectors dd'd)?
>>>
>>> If so i
On Aug 14, 2009, at 12:48 PM, Robert Nichols
wrote:
> Ross Walker wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 5:00 AM, Chan Chung Hang
>> Christopher wrote:
>>
>> Question now is, was the first sector of partition 1 damaged (was it
>> 63 or 64 sectors dd'd)?
>>
>> If so it will require a more tricky proc
Ross Walker wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 5:00 AM, Chan Chung Hang
> Christopher wrote:
>
> Question now is, was the first sector of partition 1 damaged (was it
> 63 or 64 sectors dd'd)?
>
> If so it will require a more tricky procedure to fix.
No, the ext2 file system does not use the first 1
> -Original Message-
> From: centos-boun...@centos.org
> [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf Of Ross Walker
> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 10:30
> To: CentOS mailing list
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] OT: Fortunate clueless dd chum - lvm recovery
>
> On F
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 5:00 AM, Chan Chung Hang
Christopher wrote:
>
>>
>> First of all, I would dd a copy of the whole drive off to another drive, so
>> you can have a few goes at this.
>>
>> How do you know only those bits where lost?
>>
>
> The dd command zeros the first 64 sectors, that is, t
>> I get to learn something new at his expense, (which is now just a scare)
>> nice successor eh? :-D
Maybe you could point him to this list for lunch time lesson reading,
however, you won't be able to talk about him behind his back anymore.
:-/
___
Cen
- Original Message
> From: Chan Chung Hang Christopher
> To: CentOS mailing list
> Sent: Friday, 14 August, 2009 10:00:41
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] OT: Fortunate clueless dd chum - lvm recovery
>
>
> >
> > First of all, I would dd a copy of the whole
>
> First of all, I would dd a copy of the whole drive off to another drive, so
> you can have a few goes at this.
>
> How do you know only those bits where lost?
>
The dd command zeros the first 64 sectors, that is, the mbr and then the
next 63 sectors which would the bootsector of the firs
- Original Message
> From: Chan Chung Hang Christopher
> To: CentOS mailing list
> Sent: Friday, 14 August, 2009 3:31:32
> Subject: [CentOS] OT: Fortunate clueless dd chum - lvm recovery
>
> Looks like the chum did not have to lose any data.
>
> Wiping out
Johnny Hughes wrote:
> Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote:
>
>> Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote:
>>
>>> Looks like the chum did not have to lose any data.
>>>
>>>
>> I cannot believe he actually tried to create a new filesystem on sda
>> according to the .bash_history file after
Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote:
> Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote:
>> Looks like the chum did not have to lose any data.
>>
> I cannot believe he actually tried to create a new filesystem on sda
> according to the .bash_history file after the dd commands. I think I
> need a titanium clueb
Chan Chung Hang Christopher wrote:
> Looks like the chum did not have to lose any data.
>
I cannot believe he actually tried to create a new filesystem on sda
according to the .bash_history file after the dd commands. I think I
need a titanium clueby4. Anybody know where I can get one?
___
Looks like the chum did not have to lose any data.
Wiping out the MBR and the next 63 blocks apparently only wiped out grub
stage1, partition table, and part of the lvm config data.
I get to try to do a lvm 'recovery' at his expense now but this is my
first time...has anybody ever tried resto
20 matches
Mail list logo
