On Sat, 2005-08-13 at 20:14 -0600, Lloyd Hayes wrote: > Thanks for the info, and sorry for not giving a clear picture of the > problems. It's a case of too many things going wrong back-to-back with > FC4. It takes another computer to figure out which problem is > associated with which other problem. > > My 1st impression when e2fsck reported the bad blocks was that my hard > drive was failing. However, the hard drive is partitioned with MS > Windows XP. If it was the hard drive problem, then Win XP would also > be affected. It's not. ---- You are assuming facts not in evidence. Bad blocks may be at a particular section of a disk - perhaps it was reading or writing at that disk and the computer suffered a jarring motion causing the drive heads to bump. Bad blocks are not necessarily universally scattered through out a drive. If I have a hard disk and I haven't dropped it or the computer and thus don't have reason to believe that a physical shock didn't occur and that drive gave evidence of bad blocks, I would likely replace the drive since it seems to grow worse rather quickly. Bad blocks on a Linux section that hasn't affected a Windows partition may only be a 'yet' thing. ---- > > Then we come to Logical Volume 1, instead of hda1. I don't know how > that works. I suspect that the Logical Volumes are a diversion form > the normal record tracking, the same way that Win XP and NT file > systems diverted from what was previously normal. IE,with NT, the disk > map is maintained in the directory instead of being chained at the end > of each block. Anyway, e2fsck reported problems with Logical Volume 1 > and was unable to fix it. I would need to know a lot more then I do > about the file system to use a disk editor. ---- probably so - but if the bad blocks thing reared it's ugly head, if we are talking about Ultra ATA drives, replace it, it's cheap. ---- > > As for bleeding edge, I have Red Hat 9, and Red Hat even says that > everyone should migrate to Fedora or Red Hat Enterprise. The problem > with older releases is that a number of Internet bugs are aimed at > them. As for testing versions vs stable releases, I understood that > FC4 was supposed to have been released as stable. ---- it is a 'time based release' - stable is not necessarily the out of the box objective. They are pushing the envelope - especially FC-4 with glibc-4.x - Stable might be your expectation. see fedora objectives <http://fedora.redhat.com/about/objectives.html> draw your own inferences ---- > > Anyway, I was very happy with FC3. But the updates from the past > couple of months have made it as bad as FC4. ---- huh? FC-3 is pretty rock solid at this point. ---- > > But you are right. I have the rescue CDs for FC3 and FC4, plus a > couple of older Knoppix CDs, along with a couple of SUSE CDs. I can > try recovery with these. thanks for pointing this out. This whole > thing does bother me because I have considered Fedora Core the best of > the available versions of Linux, up until now.... ---- It always depends upon what you are looking for. If you want latest software on the desktop, current Fedora release is gonna be there. If you want stable and not latest, current Fedora is not the place to be...try CentOS Craig
