> (( Note that both of the 'old' file sizes are multiples of 8K )) That is because e2fsck doesn't know the correct size, so just uses the end of the last valid block (it isn't possible to have a "hole" at the end of the file).
It looks like more than 1 bit was different and if I understand this correctly, those other bit changes are the result of this after fact padding by e2fsck.
The filesize is basically the same, except for the addition of a stray bit, way off in left field. (( Note that both of the 'old' file
Yes, it looks like single-bit corruption of some kind.
So does this imply a spontaneous bit flip on a platter? Shouldn't that have been picked by the RAID and twice because there is dual parity (RAID 6)?
-- Maurice Volaski, mvolaski@xxxxxxxxxxxx Computing Support, Rose F. Kennedy Center Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University _______________________________________________ Ext3-users mailing list Ext3-users@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ext3-users
