Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 22:35:42 -0700 From: "Chris H" <bsd-lists@bsdforge.com> To: "O. Hartmann" <o.hartmann@walstatt.org> Cc: "FreeBSD CURRENT" <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: why are the GEOM secondary GPT tables always corrupt? Message-ID: <c458b146a1b538d4aa40af2ae6b7211e@ultimatedns.net> In-Reply-To: <20170321061603.73929f93@freyja.zeit4.iv.bundesimmobilien.de> References: <55f81bad1176cc0135610f56549e85aa@ultimatedns.net>, <20170321061603.73929f93@freyja.zeit4.iv.bundesimmobilien.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 06:16:03 +0100 "O. Hartmann" <o.hartmann@walstatt.org> wrote > On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 19:08:41 -0700 > "Chris H" <bsd-lists@bsdforge.com> wrote: > > > I've seen this discussed before, but there were so many > > "solutions", I was left feeling this *must* be some sort > > of bug in GEOM/gpart. So. I just blew away the tables on > > a USB3 flash drive: > > > > # gpart destroy -F da0 > > > > # gpart create -s gpt da0 > > > > # gpart add -t freebsd-ufs -l jails da0 > > > > # newfs -U /dev/gpt/jails > > > > Added an entry to fstab(5) > > OK this should be good to go. Mount, and umount > > all return as expected, as does fsck(8). > > > > Upon reboot, I receive the following: > > > > /dev/gpt/jails: clean, 29961779 free (27 frags, 3745219 blocks, 0.0% > > fragmentation) > > GEOM: diskid/DISK-E600665E1DC77749: the secondary GPT table is corrupt or > > invalid. > > GEOM: diskid/DISK-E600665E1DC77749: using the primary only -- recovery > > suggested. > > > > But why? > > > > This is on: > > FreeBSD 12.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 12.0-CURRENT #0 r314700: amd64 > > > > Thanks for any information. > > > > --Chris > I see this when I put a disk image, which is smaller than the entire device > (for instance, 8GB USB flash drive with a UEFI booting (GPT) NanoBSD image of > 1 GB in size. I do not know what exactly causes the problem, but it can be > fixed by issuing "gpart recover DEV". I think the secondary GTP table is > supposed to reside on the physically last blocks of the device (physically). > > oh Thanks for the reply. Yes, I've caught that too. But that /almost/ seems reasonable, for that circumstance. What concerns me here; is that this is a fresh partition && newfs. Given the partition spans the entire flash drive. I wouldn't expect there to be any inconsistencies between the 2 records. I'd hate to use the recover option, and have it use wrong results. Why isn't the second table "synced" with the first/primary table? I'd blame it on the flash drive, but it's not limited to just this drive, nor just this box. I have a version 11 box that's some 6mos out, that also does this. Thanks again, for taking the time to reply! --Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?c458b146a1b538d4aa40af2ae6b7211e>