On Monday, 22nd November 1999, Bernd Walter wrote:
>On Mon, Nov 22, 1999 at 02:57:39PM +1000, Stephen McKay wrote:
>> I think there is a fault in fsck. Possibly it is because softupdates
>> changed the rules. Having run md5 over the good copy and the broken
>> (power failure interrupted) copy a
On Mon, Nov 22, 1999 at 02:57:39PM +1000, Stephen McKay wrote:
> On Sunday, 21st November 1999, Christopher Masto wrote:
>
> >On Sun, Nov 21, 1999 at 10:36:32PM +1000, Stephen McKay wrote:
> >> When the system came back up, fsck -p didn't like the vinum volume.
> >> No sweat, I ran it manually.
On Sunday, 21st November 1999, Christopher Masto wrote:
>On Sun, Nov 21, 1999 at 10:36:32PM +1000, Stephen McKay wrote:
>> When the system came back up, fsck -p didn't like the vinum volume.
>> No sweat, I ran it manually. There were many
>>
>> INCORRECT BLOCK COUNT I= (4 should be 0)
>>
>
On Sun, Nov 21, 1999 at 10:36:32PM +1000, Stephen McKay wrote:
> When the system came back up, fsck -p didn't like the vinum volume.
> No sweat, I ran it manually. There were many
>
> INCORRECT BLOCK COUNT I= (4 should be 0)
>
> messages. I assumed this was an artifact of soft updates. Th
I was giving vinum + softupdates a bit of a workout on 4 really old
SCSI disks (Sun shoeboxes, if you must know) attached to an aha1542B.
The rest of the machine is a Pentium 133 with 64MB of parity ram, a
few more disks, and another aha1542B. It runs -current (about 10 days
old now).
I was copy
