Re: May be a bug in fsck [ after super block crash on 5.4-STABLE ]

From: Taras Savchuk <taras.savchuk_at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 15:25:28 +0300
On 11/3/05, Taras Savchuk <taras.savchuk_at_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.


PS: With '-b 160' option fsck done work well.
Received on Thu Nov 03 2005 - 11:25:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:47 UTC