fsck and mount disagree on whether superblocks are usable

[Julian H. Stacey]

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