Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 09:41:59 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ren=E9_Ladan?= <rene@freebsd.org> To: FreeBSD current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: UFS journal error on 10.0-CURRENT Message-ID: <CADL2u4joKxG7aZhRT%2Br8cW6ygjzW%2BGKonkHzspswdBYR9HhLQg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1346359078818-5739408.post@n5.nabble.com> References: <CADL2u4j1rJfvx1QnpD3kiJxQ1rb04amOHx__C9fHQJPEAZtNbg@mail.gmail.com> <1346329887307-5739274.post@n5.nabble.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1208301942100.1498@s560x.c0c0.intra> <1346359078818-5739408.post@n5.nabble.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2012/8/30 Jakub Lach <jakub_lach@mailplus.pl>: > Yes, if I would answer 'yes' to using journal, there would be unexpected > free inodes (?) or something like that in syslog and inconsistencies if f= ull > fsck > would be performed. > That's normally the case, yes, but not here. > Basically if I have answered 'yes' to using journal, fs would always be > marked > 'clean' regardless of state. > I solved it this way, thanks to a tip from Doug White: 1. tunefs -j disable /dev/ada0s1f 2. fsck -y /usr 3 mount /usr ; rm /usr/.sujournal ; umount /usr 4 tunefs -j enable /dev/ada0s1f 5 <reboot> Step 3 is required because tunefs gets confused when you enable a journal and an (old) journal is already present. Either I should add this somewhere to the Handbook/an article, or fsck(_ufs) should be made more intelligent... Regards, Ren=E9
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADL2u4joKxG7aZhRT%2Br8cW6ygjzW%2BGKonkHzspswdBYR9HhLQg>