[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfs Digest, Vol 29, Issue 102

To: lord worm <cryptopsy@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: xfs Digest, Vol 29, Issue 102
From: Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 12:31:12 -0600
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <SNT130-w323D725C89EB3F13E94A3BDAE20@xxxxxxx>
References: <mailman.1364.1296445754.4020.xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> <SNT130-w323D725C89EB3F13E94A3BDAE20@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv: Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
lord worm put forth on 1/30/2011 10:41 PM:

> Stan, do you check dates on links before you paste them here? I don't care if 
> its the 1st results of the google search 'meaning of life', its irrelevant 
> and oudated.

At the time I sent that reply, you had posted no log information, nothing
concrete to allow us to focus our troubleshooting efforts.  At that time, the
information in the link I provided could have been as relevant as any other.  At
that time I had not seen the off list back-n-forth between you and Dave that
contained a little bit more information from you.  Note that I said "might be
relevant", not "this is your answer".

Note that Dave recently pointed an OP to a 1996 XFS paper.  Some information in
that 15 year old paper is still relevant today.  You cannot simply discard
information because it appears "old" to you.  Some aspects of XFS haven't
changed in 16 years.

As I said in my first response, xfsdump/xfsrestore would have avoided your
current problem, as well as xfs_copy, as Dave pointed out.

There is nothing set in stone that prevents dd from working with XFS
filesystems.  However, it is obviously less forgiving of error, user or
otherwise, than the 'equivalent' XFS utilities.

Lastly, getting testy with those attempting to assist you isn't going to further
your efforts in fixing your problem.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>