From owner-freebsd-current Sat Nov 23 7:29:28 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6E7437B401 for ; Sat, 23 Nov 2002 07:29:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail19a.dulles19-verio.com (mail19a.dulles19-verio.com [161.58.134.133]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E63AB43E88 for ; Sat, 23 Nov 2002 07:29:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rob@pythonemproject.com) Received: from www.pythonemproject.com (198.104.176.109) by mail19a.dulles19-verio.com (RS ver 1.0.63s) with SMTP id 034503; Sat, 23 Nov 2002 10:29:26 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3DDF9DD9.FAB5DF7A@pythonemproject.com> Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 07:25:13 -0800 From: Rob X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.8 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.2 i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Garance A Drosihn , "freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG" Subject: Re: fsck's, "current" vs "earlier releases" References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Loop-Detect: 1 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Hi Garance, This happened to me also. The solution was to run fsck on the older versions, but tell it to use an alternate superblock. See man fsck. I forget the details, but it worked for me. Rob. Garance A Drosihn wrote: > > I'm playing around with installing a number of freebsd releases on > the same PC, and something came up which makes me a little uneasy. > I understand why I am seeing what I'm seeing, I'm just uneasy about > what it might mean for people who will pick up 5.0-release and start > testing it on their own machines. > > I have 4.6.2-release, 4.7-release, and 5.0-dp2-release on a single PC. > After some bouncing between versions, and an occasional 'disklabel' > command, I seem to have the partitions for 4.6.2 in an odd state. > Both 4.7 and 5.0-dp2 have no problem mounting them, but if I try to > boot up the 4.6.2 system it fails because 4.6.2 finds that "values > in super block disagree with those in first alternate". 4.6.2 wants > me to 'fsck' the partitions manually, but I *think* I remember that > using the older fsck might cause trouble. > > For my own PC none of this is critical, because I'm just doing a few > quick tests and at this point I don't even need to boot up 4.6.2. I > just wonder how much of an issue this will be for people who setup > their machines to dual-boot between 5.0-release (once it *is* released) > and "something a little older". 4.7 has no trouble, but even 4.6.2 > (which is not all that old) can be confused by the subtle changes in > UFS which will show up in 5.0-release. > > I am not suggesting we must do something about this, I'm just a > little uneasy about the situation. Okay, well maybe I should try at > least one suggestion. Should we tell people that they *must* update > 'fsck' on *other* (multi-boot) systems before installing 5.0-release? > > -- > Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu > Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org > Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message -- ----------------------------- The Numeric Python EM Project www.pythonemproject.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message