In the immortal words of Stephen Lord (lord@xxxxxxx):
> >recognized the partition as XFS, and an xfs_repair run on the
> >partition completely cleanly, with only one notice about rebuilding
> >the inode for directory 128.
> >
>
> Well, this is the root inode, and if it had to do surgery on it,
> repair may have disconnected all your other inodes. Now, it should
> put them in lost+found, and in theory you can work out which one is
> which and rename them back again. Unless repair is nice and gives
> you whole subtrees in there this is not exactly a workable solution.
>
> What did repair say about your inode?
Hm, unfortunatly I did not keep a log of xfs_repair's output at that
time. I'll see if I can regenerate it.
> Also, I assume all the editing of the first 4K was done with the
> filesystem offline, in which case if you did really just overwrite
> those 10 bytes, all should have been well. I cannot see how XFS can
> be using that part of the disk. If you wrote the 4K whilst the
> filesystem was online then yes, it is probably toast.
The chunk was _written_ while the fs was offline, but it was _read_
while the fs was online, which in crystal hindsight means that offset
0 through 4085 was restored to an earlier and probably inconsistant
state.
------------------------------------------------------<memory@xxxxxxxxx>
"Television is going to change the world; it's got everything you need:
sight, sound, motion and stupid white men." (--Nolanda Hill)
<http://blank.org/memory/>----------------------------------------------
|