Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 15:25:28 +0300 From: Taras Savchuk <taras.savchuk@gmail.com> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: May be a bug in fsck [ after super block crash on 5.4-STABLE ] Message-ID: <84099c3d0511030425q3592a288he254cb5f97f976b6@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <84099c3d0511030325q6d1df92ag77310ff1b03a2d15@mail.gmail.com> References: <84099c3d0511030325q6d1df92ag77310ff1b03a2d15@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 11/3/05, Taras Savchuk <taras.savchuk@gmail.com> wrote: > > My SATA HDD with UFS2 crashed. While checking HDD fsck said, that > alternate super block at block 32 is not present. In 'man fsck' I saw, th= at > in UFS2 (my file system) alternate super block is usually located in bloc= k > 160 (For UFS1 - in 32). So the question is: why fsck trying to find > alternate superblock in wrong block for UFS2? I can suppose, that fsck do= nt > know file system type (UFS1 or UFS2) while checking, but such assumption > seems to be wrong. PS: With '-b 160' option fsck done work well.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?84099c3d0511030425q3592a288he254cb5f97f976b6>