Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 18:27:14 +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: <200802041727.m14HREuN049123@fire.js.berklix.net> In-Reply-To: <20080204163308.GA96092@cons.org> References: <20080201172214.GA55957@cons.org> <200802021916.m12JGUjN049706@fire.js.berklix.net> <20080204163308.GA96092@cons.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Martin Cracauer wrote: > Julian H. Stacey wrote on Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 08:16:30PM +0100: > > 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. > > Thanks, Julian. > > I'm honestly don't know how to tell whether I have ufs1 or ufs2. I didnt either, but wanted to know & just found one way: dumpfs /dev/____ | grep -i ufs -- 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?200802041727.m14HREuN049123>