Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 20:16:30 +0100 From: "Julian H. Stacey" <jhs@berklix.org> To: Martin Cracauer <cracauer@cons.org> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: fsck and mount disagree on whether superblocks are usable Message-ID: <200802021916.m12JGUjN049706@fire.js.berklix.net> In-Reply-To: <20080201172214.GA55957@cons.org> References: <20080201172214.GA55957@cons.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.
--
Julian Stacey. BSD Unix Linux Net Consultant, Munich. http://berklix.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200802021916.m12JGUjN049706>