On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 11:28:46AM +0930, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
> >> [...] the parity surely is not correctly recalculated during
> >> the revive.
>
> If that were the case, the parity would be incorrect at offset 0.
> Yes, it is recalculated.
Of course -- I hadn't thought of that.
> >> Gre
On Thursday, 2 September 2004 at 12:17:01 +0200, Stijn Hoop wrote:
> Hi,
>
> back with another episode in this continuing saga:
>
> On Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 04:26:57PM +0200, Stijn Hoop wrote:
>> Witness this (after yet another fake disk crash):
>>
>
>>
>> vinum -> ls -v local.p0.s0
>> Subdisk
Hi,
back with another episode in this continuing saga:
On Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 04:26:57PM +0200, Stijn Hoop wrote:
> Witness this (after yet another fake disk crash):
>
> %%%
>
> vinum -> ls -v local.p0.s0
> Subdisk local.p0.s0:
> Size: 31457129472 bytes (2 MB)
>
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 02:24:46PM +0200, Christian Laursen wrote:
> Stijn Hoop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 12:08:53PM +0200, Christian Laursen wrote:
> > > When reviving a disk the data on that disk is calculated from the data
> > > and the parity on the other disks.
>
