Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 16:49:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Aram Khalili <aram@cs.umd.edu> To: Ian Dowse <iedowse@maths.tcd.ie> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: corrupted superblock/fsck problem Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.21.0109171645330.4082-100000@toblerone.cs.umd.edu> In-Reply-To: <200109172113.aa21589@salmon.maths.tcd.ie>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 17 Sep 2001, Ian Dowse wrote: > If fsck finishes successfully using "fsck -b 32" (i.e. you are > satisfied that the master superblock is intact), Is the superblock at block 32 the master superblock? The man page (I think offhand) says that it would be the first alternate. > then the tunefs > program can be used to rewrite all the secondary superblocks: > > tunefs -A /dev/whatever Thanks, that may have fixed my problem. > Fsck never attempts to change the backup superblocks itself. These > are written when the filesystem is first created and they are not > modified by the kernel, so there should never be a need for them > to be updated. Why are backups kept then? They're not kept in synch with the master superblock? When I read stuff about ext2fs on Linux, the documentation said it marks all superblock copies dirty when it changes the master superblock. Seems like a good idea. -aram To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SOL.4.21.0109171645330.4082-100000>