From owner-freebsd-questions Mon Sep 17 13:51:15 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from toblerone.cs.umd.edu (toblerone.cs.umd.edu [128.8.129.39]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37F3137B407 for ; Mon, 17 Sep 2001 13:51:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by toblerone.cs.umd.edu (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA06689; Mon, 17 Sep 2001 16:49:45 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 16:49:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Aram Khalili To: Ian Dowse Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: corrupted superblock/fsck problem In-Reply-To: <200109172113.aa21589@salmon.maths.tcd.ie> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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