Re: Power loss causes bad magic number??

[Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Stephen Porter wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> 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.
>   
Heh welcome to the world of linux's poor device name handling.
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.
>
> Regards,
>
> Stephen.
>
>
>
>
> [[HTML alternate version deleted]]
>
>