On 20/06/10 02:15, Andrew Reid wrote:
On Saturday 19 June 2010 14:20:27 Alan Chandler wrote:
[ Details elided ]
HOWEVER (the punch line). When this system booted, it was not the old
reverted one but how it was before I started this cycle. In other words
it looked as though the disk which I ha
On 19/06/10 23:54, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Alan Chandler put forth on 6/19/2010 1:20 PM:
I have a server with a pair of raided (RAID1) disks using partition 1,2
and 4 as /boot root and and and lvm volume respectively. The two disks
are /dev/sda and /dev/sdb. They have just replaced two smaller d
On Saturday 19 June 2010 14:20:27 Alan Chandler wrote:
[ Details elided ]
> HOWEVER (the punch line). When this system booted, it was not the old
> reverted one but how it was before I started this cycle. In other words
> it looked as though the disk which I had failed and removed was being used
Alan Chandler put forth on 6/19/2010 1:20 PM:
>
> I have a server with a pair of raided (RAID1) disks using partition 1,2
> and 4 as /boot root and and and lvm volume respectively. The two disks
> are /dev/sda and /dev/sdb. They have just replaced two smaller disks
> where the root partiton was
I have a server with a pair of raided (RAID1) disks using partition 1,2
and 4 as /boot root and and and lvm volume respectively. The two disks
are /dev/sda and /dev/sdb. They have just replaced two smaller disks
where the root partiton was NOT a raid device - it was just /dev/sda2
although
5 matches
Mail list logo
