Re: FSCK seems angry with my filesystem
On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 08:41:58AM CEST, "Andrew M.A. Cater" <email@example.com> said:
> On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 01:12:36AM +0000, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> > On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 00:53:20 +0000, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> > > On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 11:38:28 +0200, Merciadri Luca wrote:
> > >
> > >> Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> > >
> > >>> If you don't unmount it, e2fsck will complain. If need be, boot from a
> > >>> rescue disk to do so - but I'm assuming that it's not the root (/)
> > >>> filesystem, or you wouldn't have got this far.
> > >>>
> > >> It will complain, but will it impede its `functioning'?
> > >
> > > It could impede its functioning if anything at all is written to the
> > > disk while it is being checked. I can imagine it resulting in
> > > everything from nothing to minor problems to indescribable chaos.
> > >
> > > Don't go there if you value your data.
> > And, of course, although I risk sounding like a broken record for saying
> > this yet again, when you've got this fixed, make sure you have a backup
> > of all your data.
> > But if you already have a backup, don't overwrite it with anew one until
> > you've fixed the problem and are sure that what you're backing up is
> > correct. It might even be worth dong a diff --recursive --brief (or
> > something similar depending on how your backup works) between your file
> > system and your backup and checking that the files that have changed are
> > the ones you expect to have changed...
> Further to this: a RAID is no infallible substitute for a backup of critical data.
> A dying controller can write rubbish to your disks silently for days - even
> if you just get a straightforward controller failure, you then have to treat all data
> as potentially suspect for corruption.
And a RAID will destroy data on all disks if asked to...
In 11 years administering backups, the most common use case for
recovery is "oups I destroyed the wrong file".