On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 03:51 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 1:54 AM, Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote: > > On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 01:29 +0100, lkcl wrote: > >> Package: linux-2.6 > >> Version: 2.6.32-5 > > > > Not an actual version number. > > > >> Severity: important > >> > >> > >> running 2.6.32-5-amd64, after running fsck on a corrupted ext4 > >> filesystem which is an LVM partition on top of a RAID1 mirror with 3 > >> drives and is 1tb in size, there are *still* errors after the fsck, > >> as detected by running fsck a 2nd time. > > > > That would be a bug in e2fsck, not the kernel. But I would be more > > inclined to suspect some sort of hardware problem. > > ... across three drives?? all three physical drives have a hardware > problem? yes i know they're WD 1.5Tb external USB2 drives, but even > so. RAID1 doesn't protect against data corruption, only total failure of a drive. Therefore only one drive would need to be faulty. And I wasn't particularly thinking of the drives being faulty, anyway. > >> i'd say this is fairly serious, and am not going to hang about: will > >> be moving this data onto ext3 as quickly as possible. > > > > And yet ext4 works fine for other people. > > yehh... are they using 1Tb logical volumes on triple-RAID1'd 1.5Tb > drives, though - that's the question. I expect some other people are. If I were to guess at the least well-tested part of that, though, it would be RAID1 over 3 rather than 2 drives. Ben.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part