From: Theodore Tso Subject: Re: e2fsck: Device or resource busy Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 20:00:38 -0400 Message-ID: <20080603000037.GF23119@mit.edu> References: <20080602202144.GD23119@mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Christian Kujau Return-path: Received: from www.church-of-our-saviour.ORG ([69.25.196.31]:57743 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752633AbYFCAAw (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jun 2008 20:00:52 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 12:23:48AM +0200, Christian Kujau wrote: > On Mon, 2 Jun 2008, Theodore Tso wrote: >> The key thing that you need to do when trying to recover from RAID >> setups where you are missing one or more disks is to align the pieces >> so they are in their original places, with the missing pieces replaced >> with a /dev/zero device. > > Hm, interesting, I did not consider that yet. Thanks for the links, I'll > have a look. But again: I don't really care for the data, I was just > playing around and wondering why it reported "Device or resource busy" > when I expected something like "unable to find superblock". That will only happen if someone else has opened the device with O_EXCL. Are you sure you didn't ^Z an e2fsck or some such and then started a second one, or some such? Is this repeatable? - Ted