Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 11:33:08 -0500 From: Martin Cracauer <cracauer@cons.org> To: "Julian H. Stacey" <jhs@berklix.org> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, Martin Cracauer <cracauer@cons.org> Subject: Re: fsck and mount disagree on whether superblocks are usable Message-ID: <20080204163308.GA96092@cons.org> In-Reply-To: <200802021916.m12JGUjN049706@fire.js.berklix.net> References: <20080201172214.GA55957@cons.org> <200802021916.m12JGUjN049706@fire.js.berklix.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Julian H. Stacey wrote on Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 08:16:30PM +0100: > Martin Cracauer wrote: > > This is not an emergency but I find it odd. Mount and fsck agree on > > whether superblocks are usable. Mount can mount readonly, but fsck > > can use neither the primary superblock nor the alternatives. > > > > 32 is not a file system superblock > > Just in case, You know secondary block on newer FSs moved from 32 ? > Ref man fsck_ufs > -b Use the block specified immediately after the flag as the super > block for the file system. An alternate super block is usually > located at block 32 for UFS1, and block 160 for UFS2. Thanks, Julian. I'm honestly don't know how to tell whether I have ufs1 or ufs2. Anyone? The source machines runs 6-stable, the receiver runs 7-stable, but the filesystems have been created long in the past. I also think I might have a disk geometry problem here, that blocks aren't where they are supposed to be. I ran fsck by disabling the check to the second superblock, just using the first one. I lost some files but not enough to have an outright block mapping mixup. The whole thing still looks strange. Martin -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Martin Cracauer <cracauer@cons.org> http://www.cons.org/cracauer/ FreeBSD - where you want to go, today. http://www.freebsd.org/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080204163308.GA96092>