| 2008-08-11 08:25:41 |
wateenellende |
description |
Binary package hint: linux-image-2.6.26-5-generic
I'm running Hardy on a AMD64 machine with a RAID5 array in it, ext3 formatted. It has been working fine for years, with the exception of Gutsy's kernel that couldn't handle that many IDE devices (bug 157909, fixed in hardy).
To make backups, I bought an external drive and an eSata controller. The controller is not supported in Hardy's kernel (2.6.24), but it is in Intrepid, so I installed linux-image-2.6.26-5-generic from intrepid.
Running this kernel causes several changes:
1) My new controller is recognized
2) All disks are now known as /dev/sd* and not /dev/hd*
3) Copying from /dev/md0 results in many filesystem errors
4) e2fsck reports massive errors on the filesystem on /dev/md0
If I reboot into 2.6.24, all problems are gone and everything is back t normal. This implies that there is a major problem somewhere! I happen to mount the device read-only, but mounting it rw will no doubt result in severe damage to the fs. I accidentally tested this by running e2fsck under 2.6.26, which did introduce real errors that I then had to fix under 2.6.24. Now, under 2.6.24, all is fine and 2.6.26 still reports many errors. |
Binary package hint: linux-image-2.6.26-5-generic
I'm running Hardy on a AMD64 machine with a RAID5 array in it, ext3 formatted. It has been working fine for years, with the exception of Gutsy's kernel that couldn't handle that many IDE devices (bug 157909, fixed in hardy).
To make backups, I bought an external drive and an eSata controller. The controller is not supported in Hardy's kernel (2.6.24), but it is in Intrepid, so I installed linux-image-2.6.26-5-generic from intrepid.
Running this kernel causes several changes:
1) My new controller is recognized
2) All disks are now known as /dev/sd* and not /dev/hd*
3) Copying from /dev/md0 results in many filesystem errors
4) e2fsck reports massive errors on the filesystem on /dev/md0
If I reboot into 2.6.24, all problems are gone and everything is back to normal. This implies that there is a major problem somewhere! I happen to mount the device read-only, but mounting it rw will no doubt result in severe damage to the fs. I accidentally tested this by running e2fsck under 2.6.26, which did introduce real errors that I then had to fix under 2.6.24. Now, under 2.6.24, all is fine and 2.6.26 still reports many errors. |
|
