fsck and mount disagree on whether superblocks are usable

[Julian H. Stacey]

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