On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 03:25:28PM +0300, Taras Savchuk wrote: > 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. Isn't the type, UFS1 or UFS2, indicated by a magic number in the superblock itself? I used to believe so. If it's true, fsck cannot know the FS type prior to locating a superblock copy. OTOH, with UFS2 having become popular, fsck might try both locations, 32 and 160. Care to file a PR? -- YarReceived on Sun Nov 06 2005 - 13:49:24 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:47 UTC