On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 14:05 +0000, D. D. Brierton wrote: > On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 13:53 +0000, Paul Howarth wrote: > > > The linking together of these files probably happened on your original > > drive when you had problems with it. Your backups then backed up the > > corrupted data. > > Yes, that is what I was thinking too. > > > It's possible that there are other corruptions in your > > data (e.g. corrupted files) as well as the files being linked together > > like this. Do you still have the backups of your data from before you > > had problems with the original drive? > > Yes, thankfully, so there is no real problem, in that I can selectively > replace corrupted files as and when I find them. So there's no panic. > Hi all one of the differences to note though between hard links & symbolic links is, with a symbolic link, if the original/ pointed to file is deleted, the file & data is removed leaving the symbolic link pointing nowhere, with a hard link however the two file names still point to the same data, but if one of the file names is deleted the other file name remains together with the data. If you find that these extra links have been created by directory corruption so the directory entry points to the wrong data file, you might find the data files have been found and directory entries created in lost+found. The file names used in lost+found are created using the data file inode number. Laurence
