fsck and mount disagree on whether superblocks are usable

[Martin Cracauer]

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/