An EXT3 filesystem technically isn't supposed to require an fsck, correct? Well, as per my last email re: EXT3 Crash?! I ran an fsck on a couple of my LVMs. It said they were clean, but then I decided to be 100% sure and force an fsck. Error after Error after Error after Error. I wound up losing almost half the data on my LVM due to all the errors. What's the real deal? Am I doing something wrong here? -JL
ARGH! Now, my lost and found is full of stuff like this: # ls -al total 480 drwxr-xr-x 8 root root 4096 Oct 20 01:16 . drwxrwxrwx 9 root root 4096 Oct 19 14:49 .. -r-x---r-t 1 386581326 1205003636 49152 Jan 31 1939 #10126067 ---S-----x 1 46586775 335587544 36864 May 7 1935 #10126087 ------s-wT 1 739330323 1118503029 36864 Apr 1 1970 #10127363 dr-S-w--wx 2 36512 16838306 45056 Jan 1 1997 #10127478 drw-rwS--T 2 742044426 3371348671 40960 Apr 15 2031 #10128415 ---xr-srw- 1 454199894 4145110054 36864 Dec 13 2023 #10130530 -rwxrw--wT 1 1124448673 1644829552 45056 Nov 2 2016 #10132129 dr-sr-srwt 2 2053837774 1532432482 36864 Jul 3 1952 #10137824 -rwx-ws-w- 1 2049135413 101217933 36864 Oct 16 2009 #10137879 d--S-w---x 2 2162123593 37406 49152 Nov 9 1997 #10138068 --wS--s--- 1 638432580 274264805 36864 Mar 15 1930 #10138297 -rws--S--- 1 4008211217 643376123 49152 Sep 14 1971 #10139047 -r-x--S--T 1 18899196 1657748930 32768 Nov 26 1933 #10139658 d-wS-wsrwx 2 559434240 1224783615 36864 Jun 18 2006 #10139746 drwxr-xrw- 2 7808 16816913 45056 Oct 22 1988 #10140380 --wsrwSr-T 1 106012820 4052727458 45056 Nov 10 1952 #10141127 # And I can't delete any of it, either :( # rm -rf * rm: cannot unlink `#10126067': Operation not permitted rm: cannot unlink `#10126087': Operation not permitted rm: cannot unlink `#10127363': Operation not permitted rm: cannot remove directory `#10127478': Operation not permitted rm: cannot remove directory `#10128415': Operation not permitted rm: cannot unlink `#10130530': Operation not permitted rm: cannot unlink `#10132129': Operation not permitted rm: cannot remove directory `#10137824': Operation not permitted rm: cannot unlink `#10137879': Operation not permitted rm: cannot remove directory `#10138068': Operation not permitted rm: cannot unlink `#10138297': Operation not permitted rm: cannot unlink `#10139047': Operation not permitted rm: cannot unlink `#10139658': Operation not permitted rm: cannot remove directory `#10139746': Operation not permitted rm: cannot remove directory `#10140380': Operation not permitted rm: cannot unlink `#10141127': Operation not permitted What's going on here?!> -----Original Message----- > From: ext3-users-admin@redhat.com > [mailto:ext3-users-admin@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Jason A. Lixfeld > Sent: October 20, 2001 1:11 AM > To: ext3-users@redhat.com > Subject: FSCK? > > > An EXT3 filesystem technically isn't supposed to require an > fsck, correct? Well, as per my last email re: EXT3 Crash?! I > ran an fsck on a couple of my LVMs. It said they were clean, > but then I decided to be 100% sure and force an fsck. Error > after Error after Error after Error. I wound up losing almost > half the data on my LVM due to all the errors. > > What's the real deal? Am I doing something wrong here? > > -JL > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ext3-users mailing list > Ext3-users@redhat.com > listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ex> t3-users >
> did you apply the pending patches for LVM (1.0.1rc4 atm IMO)? > That helped a lot in my case (I have a DawiControll ATA100 > controller as the base for my LVM)No, because there were problems with 2.4.10 and 1.0.1rc4 for me. I don't think I could compile the kernel properly or the patching didn't work properly. That's why I settled on 2.4.10-ac11 because it had all of the goodies in it that were rumored to be most stable at the time.> > 3) Is there any way to throttle writes to an LVM, or an EXT3 > > partition? I think that's what did it. I was moving data > around from > > a super fast striped ATA100 RAID to an appended LVM. How can I > > throttle the LVM to only allow a couple of MB/sec?! That will also > > keep kjournald down at a respectable CPU/MEM utilization instead of > > chewing up all my resources and b0rking my system :) > > well, I guess you could use hdparm to slow down the discs, > but that's definately something you don't want :-)Well then, help me figure out why the hell my system borked when I tried to move stuff onto this filesystem!! :)