Re: e2fsck problem/interpretation
- From: Tam <taminglis@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 14:03:57 -0800 (PST)
Then which drive are those LVM volumes listed in /proc/partitions on?
It doesn't exist anywhere on anything, I never said it did. Doug
simply mentioned it as a possible solution as to why I couldn't mount
it. Thats why I mentioned the fact I could mount the small partition
that exists on sdc1. Subsequently had LVM been in use then nothing
would mount at all eh as it would be part of a larger file system.
Now you're talking about sdc1, while the error messages were about
sdc2. Which is it?
My original posting stated that the result of /proc/partitions showed
three partitions on sdc
8 32 33027624 sdc
8 33 104391 sdc1
8 34 39013852 sdc2
Its sdc2 that has the majority of the space allocated and the one I'm
having the problem mounting.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: e2fsck problem/interpretation
- From: Måns Rullgård
- Re: e2fsck problem/interpretation
- References:
- e2fsck problem/interpretation
- From: Tam
- Re: e2fsck problem/interpretation
- From: Douglas O'Neal
- Re: e2fsck problem/interpretation
- From: Tam
- Re: e2fsck problem/interpretation
- From: Måns Rullgård
- e2fsck problem/interpretation
- Prev by Date: Re: e2fsck problem/interpretation
- Next by Date: Re: e2fsck problem/interpretation
- Previous by thread: Re: e2fsck problem/interpretation
- Next by thread: Re: e2fsck problem/interpretation
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|