Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 03:20:39 +0800 From: Xin LI <delphij@gmail.com> To: Taras Savchuk <taras.savchuk@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: May be a bug in fsck [ after super block crash on 5.4-STABLE ] Message-ID: <a78074950511031120r6b51bbedt692b7ed614f0da45@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <84099c3d0511030535x400c80f4k7ab7ad1905d8f918@mail.gmail.com> References: <84099c3d0511030325q6d1df92ag77310ff1b03a2d15@mail.gmail.com> <84099c3d0511030535x400c80f4k7ab7ad1905d8f918@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 11/3/05, Taras Savchuk <taras.savchuk@gmail.com> wrote: > My SATA HDD with UFS2 crashed. While checking HDD fsck said, that alternate > super block at block 32 is not present. In 'man fsck' I saw, that in UFS2 > (my file system) alternate super block is usually located in block 160 (For > UFS1 - in 32). So the question is: why fsck trying to find alternate > superblock in wrong block for UFS2? I can suppose, that fsck dont know file > system type (UFS1 or UFS2) while checking, but such assumption seems to be > wrong. > > fsck with '-b 160' optione works well. I think this is a bug. You may want to dig into fsck_ffs/setup.c to find out how to solve this...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?a78074950511031120r6b51bbedt692b7ed614f0da45>