Stephen Porter wrote:
Heh welcome to the world of linux's poor device name handling.
From: Dave Chinner [mailto:david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
That looks like a boot loader.
That's what I thought, but again, this isn't a boot volume, could running
xfs_repair without the -n have done this?
And at 0x200 I'd expect to see an AGF header, not zeros. To
me, that says that either XFS is inside a partition on the drive
or someone ran a partitioning tool on /dev/sdc and overwrote the
XFS filesystem headers...
relevant line from /etc/fstab:
/dev/sdc /home/username/Data xfs defaults 0 2
the raid management tool is reporting everythings ok... any idea what could have caused this?
Ok, my apologies, I've just done an ls of /dev/sd* and the devices have been remapped (any idea what would have caused that?), sdc is no longer sdc, it is now sda, the boot devices are now detected as sdb and sdc (2 mirrored physical disks, used to be sda and sdb). How was the machine able to boot? I'm more confused than ever now, but the data is all there.
Did you make some sort of change to the hardware? added drives, moved
cards around, etc?
Anything that changes the order that drives are discovered will affect
the sd[a-...] naming.
Mount by label or mount by uuid may be your friend in this case.
Sorry for wasting everyones time.
[[HTML alternate version deleted]]