On Samstag, 13. November 2010 Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> You've missed the point of this sub thread discussion, or I did.  He
> stated that having the metadata show the files still exist is a
> positive thing.  The files are gone.  I stated that this discrepancy
> is not good thing.

And it's *not* a problem of the filesystem that that data is gone. The 
OP took 1/5 of the disk area and basically overwrote it with zeroes. He 
can be very lucky if there's even a single file still readable. That's 
definitely *robustness* of XFS. If you take 1/5th of any filesytem and 
replace it with zeroes, how many FS would will work after that, or be in 
a workable state?
 
> I believe you are confused, thinking this micro discussion is dealing
> with the OP's overall situation.  It is not.  It is dealing strictly
> with the issue of the lost set of disks, the files that were on them,
> and the fact the metadata says they still exist.  I believe this is
> due to the fact that he hasn't run a destructive xfs_repair yet,
> which I'm guessing will remove those orphaned metadata entries.

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.

Yes, the OP is in the shit, but it's more or less his own fault. Having 
no full backup, and destroying 1/5th of the disk is very crazy. If he 
can still recover the rest of the contents, he can be very lucky and 
proud to have used XFS. Other FS maybe wouldn't have been so nice.

And I believe no "chkdsk" type program like xfs-repair is designed to 
recover from partly overwritten disks anyway. The sole purpose is to 
bring the filesystem back to a working state.

-- 
mit freundlichen Grüssen,
Michael Monnerie, Ing. BSc

it-management Internet Services: Protéger
http://proteger.at [gesprochen: Prot-e-schee]
Tel: +43 660 / 415 6531

// ****** Radiointerview zum Thema Spam ******
// http://www.it-podcast.at/archiv.html#podcast-100716
// 
// Haus zu verkaufen: http://zmi.at/langegg/