fsck and mount disagree on whether superblocks are usable
Martin Cracauer
cracauer at cons.org
Mon Feb 4 16:33:11 UTC 2008
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.
Anyone? The source machines runs 6-stable, the receiver runs 7-stable,
but the filesystems have been created long in the past.
I also think I might have a disk geometry problem here, that blocks
aren't where they are supposed to be. I ran fsck by disabling the
check to the second superblock, just using the first one. I lost some
files but not enough to have an outright block mapping mixup.
The whole thing still looks strange.
Martin
--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Martin Cracauer <cracauer at cons.org> http://www.cons.org/cracauer/
FreeBSD - where you want to go, today. http://www.freebsd.org/
More information about the freebsd-fs
mailing list