| To: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: xfs_repair of critical volume |
| From: | Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sat, 13 Nov 2010 21:31:52 -0600 |
| In-reply-to: | <201011131635.19396@xxxxxx> |
| References: | <75C248E3-2C99-426E-AE7D-9EC543726796@xxxxxxxx> <20101113091938.1d0553a8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4CDE5A4D.9090905@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <201011131635.19396@xxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6 |
Michael Monnerie put forth on 11/13/2010 9:35 AM: > Maybe, but you took my message, which solely described that XFS is > incredible to still work, and mix it with the wish to still have that > data. That is not what I said at all. I said that the metadata showing that the files still exist, when in fact they do not, isn't a state of affairs I'd describe as "robust". I've stated this at least twice now, very clearly. You are ascribing thoughts, wishes, etc, to me, that I never enunciated. I made a simple remark about a very specific aspect of the OP's situation, relating to your remark, period. I did not suggest an alternate behavior would be better. -- Stan |
| Previous by Date: | Re: xfs Digest, Vol 27, Issue 39, Eli Morris |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: xfs_repair of critical volume, Dave Chinner |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: xfs_repair of critical volume, Michael Monnerie |
| Next by Thread: | Re: xfs_repair of critical volume, Eli Morris |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |