It would help if you'd provided disk information, such as how many
partitions. I'm guessing from what you provided that the problem is on
the root partition. By default 5.0.6 doesn't check the root file
system on an auto boot. What you're seeing is the file system checks
on the rest of the partitions.

When you get the Boot: prompt just press enter. Eventually you'll be
prompted for the root password to enter maintenance mode. Do that.
Then type

fsck /

Ray Robert
Three Star Software

Lori wrote:
> Hi,
> I am getting the error(s);
>
> HTFS: Inode 11915 on HTFS dev hd (1/43) has bad type 000000000000
> HTFS: I/O failure occured accessing logical block 477364230 on HTFS dev
> hd (1/43)
>
> and then the system shuts down.
>
> Is there any way to fix these? We have done the command 'unix auto' at
> the Boot: prompt and it goes through its file system checks and appears
> to correct some problems. We have had some corruption on the database
> but were able to fix the problems.
>
> Our next plan of action is to clone the drive, but if anyone has any
> other suggestions for a way to fix this issue I would appreciate it.
>
> Lori Calkins

ThreeStar wrote (on Wed, Dec 27, 2006 at 03:51:52PM -0800):
> It would help if you'd provided disk information, such as how many
> partitions. I'm guessing from what you provided that the problem is on
> the root partition. By default 5.0.6 doesn't check the root file
> system on an auto boot. What you're seeing is the file system checks
> on the rest of the partitions.
>
> When you get the Boot: prompt just press enter. Eventually you'll be
> prompted for the root password to enter maintenance mode. Do that.
> Then type
>
> fsck /
>
> Ray Robert
> Three Star Software

You may need to type 'fsck -ofull /' to get any useful results.

--
_________________________________________
Nachman Yaakov Ziskind, FSPA, LLM awacs@ziskind.us
Attorney and Counselor-at-Law http://ziskind.us
Economic Group Pension Services http://egps.com
Actuaries and Employee Benefit Consultants

There is only one partition...I will try going into single user mode
and running the fsck -ofull.

Thank you,

Lori
Nachman Yaakov Ziskind wrote:
> ThreeStar wrote (on Wed, Dec 27, 2006 at 03:51:52PM -0800):
> > It would help if you'd provided disk information, such as how many
> > partitions. I'm guessing from what you provided that the problem is on
> > the root partition. By default 5.0.6 doesn't check the root file
> > system on an auto boot. What you're seeing is the file system checks
> > on the rest of the partitions.
> >
> > When you get the Boot: prompt just press enter. Eventually you'll be
> > prompted for the root password to enter maintenance mode. Do that.
> > Then type
> >
> > fsck /
> >
> > Ray Robert
> > Three Star Software
>
> You may need to type 'fsck -ofull /' to get any useful results.
>
> --
> _________________________________________
> Nachman Yaakov Ziskind, FSPA, LLM awacs@ziskind.us
> Attorney and Counselor-at-Law http://ziskind.us
> Economic Group Pension Services http://egps.com
> Actuaries and Employee Benefit Consultants

Lori wrote:
> There is only one partition...I will try going into single user mode
> and running the fsck -ofull.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Lori
> Nachman Yaakov Ziskind wrote:
> > ThreeStar wrote (on Wed, Dec 27, 2006 at 03:51:52PM -0800):
> > > It would help if you'd provided disk information, such as how many
> > > partitions. I'm guessing from what you provided that the problem is on
> > > the root partition. By default 5.0.6 doesn't check the root file
> > > system on an auto boot. What you're seeing is the file system checks
> > > on the rest of the partitions.
> > >
> > > When you get the Boot: prompt just press enter. Eventually you'll be
> > > prompted for the root password to enter maintenance mode. Do that.
> > > Then type
> > >
> > > fsck /
> > >
> > > Ray Robert
> > > Three Star Software
> >
> > You may need to type 'fsck -ofull /' to get any useful results.

This might be a hard drive error rather than a fs confusion. Check
/var/adm/messages for NOTICE messages. Of course it can also be bad
ram or bad disk controller. But yes, start with fsck -o full.

--
Tony Lawrence
Unix/Linux/Mac OS X Resources
http://aplawrence.com

Hi,
I didn't see any 'NOTICE' messages except for the error messages that I
prevously asked about.
I did the 'fsck -ofull' and plan on cloning the drive, although this is
a pc with raid 0 set up.

Since I could not be on site, I had walked the customer through doing
the filesystem check.

Thank you for your help.

Lori

Lori wrote:
> There is only one partition...I will try going into single user mode
> and running the fsck -ofull.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Lori
> Nachman Yaakov Ziskind wrote:
> > ThreeStar wrote (on Wed, Dec 27, 2006 at 03:51:52PM -0800):
> > > It would help if you'd provided disk information, such as how many
> > > partitions. I'm guessing from what you provided that the problem is on
> > > the root partition. By default 5.0.6 doesn't check the root file
> > > system on an auto boot. What you're seeing is the file system checks
> > > on the rest of the partitions.
> > >
> > > When you get the Boot: prompt just press enter. Eventually you'll be
> > > prompted for the root password to enter maintenance mode. Do that.
> > > Then type
> > >
> > > fsck /
> > >
> > > Ray Robert
> > > Three Star Software
> >
> > You may need to type 'fsck -ofull /' to get any useful results.
> >
> > --
> > _________________________________________
> > Nachman Yaakov Ziskind, FSPA, LLM awacs@ziskind.us
> > Attorney and Counselor-at-Law http://ziskind.us
> > Economic Group Pension Services http://egps.com
> > Actuaries and Employee Benefit Consultants

Lori äæÔÊå ÇÓÊ:
> Hi,
> I am getting the error(s);
>
> HTFS: Inode 11915 on HTFS dev hd (1/43) has bad type 000000000000
> HTFS: I/O failure occured accessing logical block 477364230 on HTFS dev
> hd (1/43)
>
> and then the system shuts down.
>
> Is there any way to fix these? We have done the command 'unix auto' at
> the Boot: prompt and it goes through its file system checks and appears
> to correct some problems. We have had some corruption on the database
> but were able to fix the problems.
>
> Our next plan of action is to clone the drive, but if anyone has any
> other suggestions for a way to fix this issue I would appreciate it.
>
> Lori Calkins

On 29 Dec 2006 08:06:01 -0800, "Lori" wrote:

-I did the 'fsck -ofull' and plan on cloning the drive, although this is
-a pc with raid 0 set up.

Just as a matter of interest - why are you using RAID 0 at all?

regards

-Rob
robatwork at mail dot com

I am sorry, we are using RAID 1....It wasn't a decision I was included
in on, it was recommended by our Corporate office (I think).

-Lori
Rob S wrote:
> On 29 Dec 2006 08:06:01 -0800, "Lori" wrote:
>
> -I did the 'fsck -ofull' and plan on cloning the drive, although this is
> -a pc with raid 0 set up.
>
> Just as a matter of interest - why are you using RAID 0 at all?
>
> regards
>
> -Rob
> robatwork at mail dot com

On 3 Jan 2007 05:34:30 -0800, "Lori" wrote:

-I am sorry, we are using RAID 1....It wasn't a decision I was included
-in on, it was recommended by our Corporate office (I think).
-
Raid 1 is entirely different to Raid 0 - and to be recommended.....

I can't imagine any scenario in business where you would use Raid 0.


-Rob
robatwork at mail dot com

In article <459df990.11442546@giganews.nildram.co.uk>,
Rob S wrote:
>On 3 Jan 2007 05:34:30 -0800, "Lori" wrote:
>
>-I am sorry, we are using RAID 1....It wasn't a decision I was included
>-in on, it was recommended by our Corporate office (I think).

>Raid 1 is entirely different to Raid 0 - and to be recommended.....

>I can't imagine any scenario in business where you would use Raid 0.

In the past it was about the only way to gain large data spaces
as the HD's were so much smaller. I ran a striped RAID 0 across
three 600MB drives as there were no decently priced 1GB drives, and
darned few of them.

The speed increase is also a factor - not too significant now with
the current drives.

We knew the potential problems and there were nightly verified
backups of BackupEdge - or whatever it's name then.

The client was aware that he could lose any days work of any given
day, but the space and speed were needed so that was approved.

I guess it all depends upon the business model you use to determine
which RAID model to use.

Bill

--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com

On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 22:15:01 GMT, bv@wjv.com (Bill Vermillion) wrote:


-
-In the past it was about the only way to gain large data spaces
-as the HD's were so much smaller. I ran a striped RAID 0 across
-three 600MB drives as there were no decently priced 1GB drives, and
-darned few of them.
-

Yep I suppose in the past limitations with disk price and BIOS support were
factors. This kind of thing scares me:

http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?pid=10188

I would maintain now there isn't a sensible business model for plain Raid 0, now
that 0+1, 1+0, 10 etc are available. Oh and I suppose Raid 0 should be aid 0,
cos there's no element of R at all!

rgds


-Rob
robatwork at mail dot com

In article <459e5f49.20893109@giganews.nildram.co.uk>, Rob S
wrote:

>On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 22:15:01 GMT, bv@wjv.com (Bill Vermillion)
>wrote:
>
>
>-
>-In the past it was about the only way to gain large data spaces
>-as the HD's were so much smaller.

That depends upon the business. And there are instances when
having any RAID at all doesn't make good business sense. And that
would be in a system that is primarily read-only

Years ago when the drives were much smaller I saw a team of SGI
engineers swapping out 400 - FOUR HUNDRED - 2GB drive for the same
number of 4GB drives - as they were running out of space.
THere were two rows of 6 foot tall racks with long differential
SCSI cables connecting to the servers. Those cables were about 75
feet long and EXPENSIVE.

This was basically a running prototype system for what is now
called VOD - Video On Demand.

RAID in an instance like that would mean lost of total capacity in
what is essentially a read-only system. In a place like that
it would be easier and less costly to replace a failed drive
and then restore from tape backups. The largest tape backup
system I saw - at a server style show - held 12 PETABYTES - with
robotic arms addressing hundred of cartridge tapes - all of which
at that time were in the 90GB to 160GB capactiy. And when you
needed more storage you just added another rack and more rails for
the robotic arms to travel upon. The unit I saw was about
10-12 feet wide.


>I ran a striped RAID 0 across
>-three 600MB drives as there were no decently priced 1GB drives,
>-and darned few of them.

>Yep I suppose in the past limitations with disk price and BIOS
>support were factors. This kind of thing scares me:

>http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?pid=10188

What scares me about that is that is is USB 2.0. I just don't
think that belongs in a performance environment. And I wonder who
builds their HDs as there are only a handful HD manufactures
extant.

Go to www.apple.com and look under products for the Xraid devices.
Sure it's more expensive - $5999 list for 1TB of hot-swappable
drives - but uses a 2Gb fiber-channel transfer. All that in
a rack-mount that looks to be a 4RU chassis. I guess it all
depends on how much you value your data - as one costs
10 times the other.

>I would maintain now there isn't a sensible business model for
>plain Raid 0, now that 0+1, 1+0, 10 etc are available. Oh and I
>suppose Raid 0 should be aid 0, cos there's no element of R at
>all!

And one heavily used model is RAID-5, with RAID-6 popping up more
often now.

If you look at the specs for the RAID designations - and there are
many - you will find that the standards group gratuitously gave
the term RAID 0 to stripped arrays while admiting they weren't RAID
arrays in the strict sense.

>
>rgds
>
>
>-Rob
>robatwork at mail dot com


--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com