Thanks much, highly informative.
On Sun, 30 Dec 2018, David wrote:
> Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2018 18:18:41
> From: David
> To: debian-user
> Subject: Re: e2fsck detail check
> Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2018 23:19:07 + (UTC)
> Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org
>
> O
l you use to start e2fsck
interactively, or the shell script that starts e2fsck.
You can read about file descriptors here:
http://mywiki.wooledge.org/FileDescriptor
The e2fsck man page also explains that if you precede the
fd number with a minus sign, then e2fsck will defer writing to the
file d
On 12/29/18 7:20 PM, Jude DaShiell wrote:
I have a question about the -c fd command line switch. Would the valid
options for fd be stdin stdout and stderr?
I may need to provide remote support for someone and it will be helpful if
e2fsck can show completion percentage as any repair happens.
I
I have a question about the -c fd command line switch. Would the valid
options for fd be stdin stdout and stderr?
I may need to provide remote support for someone and it will be helpful if
e2fsck can show completion percentage as any repair happens.
--
Good time of the day, Kamaraju.
You wrote:
> Yes, there are I/O errors in syslog such as
>
> Aug 30 08:27:20 kusumanchi kernel: [118453.218041] Buffer I/O error
> on device sdb7, logical block 5384272
> Aug 30 08:27:20 kusumanchi kernel: [118453.219839] Buffer I/O error
> on device sdb7, logica
Good time of the day, Jon.
Thank You for Your correction.
You wrote:
> > You have to understand: You have to connect it to the controller
> > directly OR You can not use what the SMART offers to You. That
> > simple.
>
> This is not actually true. Yes, the majority of USB hard drives do
> not s
Kamaraju S Kusumanchi writes:
> lee wrote:
>
>> Kamaraju S Kusumanchi writes:
>>
>>> When I ran
>>>
>>> $sudo e2fsck -c -c -f -v /dev/sdb7
>>>
>>> I am getting a lot of errors such as
>>>
>>> Error reading blo
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 11:39:37PM +0700, Sthu Deus wrote:
> You have to understand: You have to connect it to the controller
> directly OR You can not use what the SMART offers to You. That simple.
This is not actually true. Yes, the majority of USB hard drives do not support
SMART, but some do.
lee wrote:
> Kamaraju S Kusumanchi writes:
>
>> When I ran
>>
>> $sudo e2fsck -c -c -f -v /dev/sdb7
>>
>> I am getting a lot of errors such as
>>
>> Error reading block 18022401 (Attempt to read block from filesystem
>> resulted
>> i
Good time of the day, Andrei.
You wrote:
> To quote an uncle of mine, one only needs a "persuader" (read:
> hammer) :D
You have very wise uncle! :o)
Sthu.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.de
On Ma, 04 sep 12, 23:39:37, Sthu Deus wrote:
>
> Personally, I do not believe that the HDD is not extractable -
> speaking in general.
To quote an uncle of mine, one only needs a "persuader" (read: hammer)
:D
Kind regards,
Andrei
--
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http:
Good time of the day, Kamaraju.
You wrote:
> May be I am missing something here. The USB hard drive I am talking
> is very similar to http://www.amazon.com/Iomega-Prestige-Portable-
> SuperSpeed-35192/dp/B004NIAG5E/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top . The case
> can't be removed.
You have to understand:
Kamaraju S Kusumanchi writes:
> When I ran
>
> $sudo e2fsck -c -c -f -v /dev/sdb7
>
> I am getting a lot of errors such as
>
> Error reading block 18022401 (Attempt to read block from filesystem resulted
> in short read) while reading inode and block bitmaps. Ignore er
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 11:40:55PM -0400, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi wrote:
> Dan Ritter wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 09:28:20AM -0400, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi wrote:
> >> 4) What might have caused this problem and how to prevent it in the
> >> future?
> >
> > I don't know, but in my experience,
Dan Ritter wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 09:28:20AM -0400, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi wrote:
>> 4) What might have caused this problem and how to prevent it in the
>> future?
>
> I don't know, but in my experience, USB-connected hard disks
> suffer these problems much more than PATA/SATA/eSATA/SCSI
Sthu Deus wrote:
> Kamaraju, You wrote:
>
>> > You will not be able to do so until You connect Your drive to
>> > computer directly - i.e. through PATA/SATA cable.
>> >
>>
>> This is an external USB hard drive. The only connection it has is
>> USB. So, I guess in this case smartctl is not much
Kamaraju, You wrote:
> > You will not be able to do so until You connect Your drive to
> > computer directly - i.e. through PATA/SATA cable.
> >
>
> This is an external USB hard drive. The only connection it has is
> USB. So, I guess in this case smartctl is not much useful.
And You can not dis
On Thursday 30 August 2012 19:17:14 Kamaraju S Kusumanchi wrote:
> Sthu Deus wrote:
> > You will not be able to do so until You connect Your drive to computer
> > directly - i.e. through PATA/SATA cable.
>
> This is an external USB hard drive. The only connection it has is USB. So,
> I guess in thi
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 09:28:20AM -0400, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi wrote:
> 1) Does this mean there are badblocks on my hard drive?
Yes.
> 2) Am I correct in choosing "yes" to both these questions or is there a
> better way?
Yes.
> 3) Is the drive going bad and need to be replaced?
Yes.
> 4) Wh
Sthu Deus wrote:
>
> You will not be able to do so until You connect Your drive to computer
> directly - i.e. through PATA/SATA cable.
>
This is an external USB hard drive. The only connection it has is USB. So, I
guess in this case smartctl is not much useful.
--
Kamaraju S Kusumanchi
http:/
Good time of the day, Kamaraju.
You wrote:
> $smartctl -a /dev/sdb
> smartctl 5.41 2011-06-09 r3365 [i686-linux-3.0.0-1-686-pae] (local
> build) Copyright (C) 2002-11 by Bruce Allen,
> http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net
>
> /dev/sdb: Unknown USB bridge [0x059b:0x0571 (0x000)]
> Smartctl: plea
Federico Alberto Sayd wrote:
> Did you try to diagnose your hardrive with smartmontools? Smartmontools
> uses S.M.A.R.T.[1] technology included in harddrives, and displays info
> about predictable failures, time of use, etc.
>
> Regards
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.M.A.R.T.
$smartctl
On 28/08/12 10:28, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi wrote:
When I ran
$sudo e2fsck -c -c -f -v /dev/sdb7
I am getting a lot of errors such as
Error reading block 18022401 (Attempt to read block from filesystem resulted
in short read) while reading inode and block bitmaps. Ignore error? yes
Force
When I ran
$sudo e2fsck -c -c -f -v /dev/sdb7
I am getting a lot of errors such as
Error reading block 18022401 (Attempt to read block from filesystem resulted
in short read) while reading inode and block bitmaps. Ignore error? yes
Force rewrite? yes
Error reading block 19562497 (Attempt to
gt; My system, Squeeze, cannot install the latest kernel
> > > > > > > > > > > image because
> > > > > > > > > > > dosfslabel finds a problem that prevents the installation
> > > > > > > > > > > of linux-base.
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 07:49:58PM +0930, Arthur Marsh wrote:
> Andrei Popescu wrote, on 24/07/10 16:29:
> >On Sb, 24 iul 10, 09:18:04, Arthur Marsh wrote:
> >>
> >>xhost +
> >
> >This is insecure:
> >http://www.fooishbar.org/blog/tech/x/xhost-plus-2010-06-29-22-42.html
> >
> >Regards,
> >Andrei
>
cannot install the latest kernel image
> > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > dosfslabel finds a problem that prevents the installation
> > > > > > > > > > of linux-base.
> > > > > &g
Andrei Popescu wrote, on 24/07/10 16:29:
On Sb, 24 iul 10, 09:18:04, Arthur Marsh wrote:
xhost +
This is insecure:
http://www.fooishbar.org/blog/tech/x/xhost-plus-2010-06-29-22-42.html
Regards,
Andrei
Agreed about the " xhost + " being insecure but it took a few tries to
work out the corr
On Sb, 24 iul 10, 09:18:04, Arthur Marsh wrote:
>
> xhost +
This is insecure:
http://www.fooishbar.org/blog/tech/x/xhost-plus-2010-06-29-22-42.html
Regards,
Andrei
--
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
I used e2fsck to check each of the disk
partitions and e2fsck reported all the partitions clean. However, the
result of running dosfslabel /dev/hda1 results in the following output:
There are differences between boot sector and its backup.
Differences: (offset:original/backup
cannot install the latest kernel image
> > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > dosfslabel finds a problem that prevents the installation
> > > > > > > > > > of linux-base.
> > > > > &g
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 23:42:39 +0200, Florian Kulzer
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 15:53:36 -0400, Thomas H. George wrote:
>>
>> /dev/hda1/temp ext2rw,user,auto0 2
>> /dev/sdc /media/fuze vfatrw,user,noauto 0 0
>> /dev/sg1 /usbd
t; > > > > > > dosfslabel finds a problem that prevents the installation of
> > > > > > > > > linux-base.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Trying to resolve this I used e2fsck to check each of the disk
> > &
orge wrote:
> > > > > > > > My system, Squeeze, cannot install the latest kernel image
> > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > dosfslabel finds a problem that prevents the installation of
> > > > &
ot install the latest kernel image because
> > > > > > > dosfslabel finds a problem that prevents the installation of
> > > > > > > linux-base.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Trying to resolve this I used e2fsck
fslabel finds a problem that prevents the installation of
> > > > > > linux-base.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Trying to resolve this I used e2fsck to check each of the disk
> > > > > > partitions and e2fsck repo
> > On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:25:42 -0400, Thomas H. George wrote:
> > > > > My system, Squeeze, cannot install the latest kernel image because
> > > > > dosfslabel finds a problem that prevents the installation of
> > > > > linux-base.
> >
; > > My system, Squeeze, cannot install the latest kernel image because
> > > > dosfslabel finds a problem that prevents the installation of linux-base.
> > > >
> > > > Trying to resolve this I used e2fsck to check each of the disk
> > > > partiti
gt; > dosfslabel finds a problem that prevents the installation of linux-base.
> > >
> > > Trying to resolve this I used e2fsck to check each of the disk
> > > partitions and e2fsck reported all the partitions clean. However, the
> > > result
; >
> > Trying to resolve this I used e2fsck to check each of the disk
> > partitions and e2fsck reported all the partitions clean. However, the
> > result of running dosfslabel /dev/hda1 results in the following output:
> >
> >
> > There are differ
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:25:42 -0400, Thomas H. George wrote:
> My system, Squeeze, cannot install the latest kernel image because
> dosfslabel finds a problem that prevents the installation of linux-base.
>
> Trying to resolve this I used e2fsck to check each of the disk
>
My system, Squeeze, cannot install the latest kernel image because
dosfslabel finds a problem that prevents the installation of linux-base.
Trying to resolve this I used e2fsck to check each of the disk
partitions and e2fsck reported all the partitions clean. However, the
result of running
On Jo, 24 iun 10, 13:16:29, Paul E Condon wrote:
>
> I was OP on a related thread a couple of months ago. I would say that
> I abandoned trying to understand issues of checking for errors on USB
> drives as a user. I did gain the impression that what I thought were
> hardware errors were instead m
On 20100622_022612, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 06/22/2010 12:33 AM, Augustin wrote:
> >
> >Hello,
> >
> >I must learn to use e2fsck as I am having some I/O problems on some of
> >my external drives.
> >I checked all the existing documentation everywhere I
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Augustin wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I must learn to use e2fsck as I am having some I/O problems on some of
> my external drives.
> I checked all the existing documentation everywhere I could think of
> (including the Debian official documentatio
On 6/22/2010 3:47 AM, Jochen Schulz wrote:
What's unclear about it?
The manpage doesn't say: Okay, when this happens, run this. When that
happens, run that. (That's what he wants. And, I admit, what I want,
sometimes.)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.or
Augustin:
> On Tuesday 22 June 2010 15:26:12 Ron Johnson wrote:
>> The *drive*? No. e2fsck checks the filesystem data structures
>> that have been written onto the drive.
>
> Yes, sorry. I did mean the partition, not the drive.
No, you didn't mean the partition
On 06/22/2010 03:17 AM, Augustin wrote:
On Tuesday 22 June 2010 15:26:12 Ron Johnson wrote:
The *drive*? No. e2fsck checks the filesystem data structures
that have been written onto the drive.
Yes, sorry. I did mean the partition, not the drive.
You need SMART to check the drive.
Yes
On Tuesday 22 June 2010 15:26:12 Ron Johnson wrote:
> The *drive*? No. e2fsck checks the filesystem data structures
> that have been written onto the drive.
Yes, sorry. I did mean the partition, not the drive.
> You need SMART to check the drive.
Yes, I haven't had t
On Tuesday 22 June 2010 15:26:12 Ron Johnson wrote:
> The *drive*? No. e2fsck checks the filesystem data structures
> that have been written onto the drive.
Yes, sorry. I did mean the partition, not the drive.
> You need SMART to check the drive.
Yes, I haven't had t
On 06/22/2010 12:33 AM, Augustin wrote:
Hello,
I must learn to use e2fsck as I am having some I/O problems on some of
my external drives.
I checked all the existing documentation everywhere I could think of
(including the Debian official documentation and existing HOWTOs from
TLDP), but
Hello,
I must learn to use e2fsck as I am having some I/O problems on some of
my external drives.
I checked all the existing documentation everywhere I could think of
(including the Debian official documentation and existing HOWTOs from
TLDP), but couldn't find anything that is detaile
On 02/24/2009 06:15 PM, Matthew Moore wrote:
On Tuesday 24 February 2009 02:44:14 pm Ron Johnson wrote:
[snip]
No, I definitely have /sbin/fsck.ext4.
But running it doesn't fix the group descriptor error? This person is having the
same problem and looks to have resorted to dumping the fs and
On Tuesday 24 February 2009 02:44:14 pm Ron Johnson wrote:
> This looks reasonable.
> # lvdisplay
> Logging initialised at Tue Feb 24 15:42:45 2009
> Set umask to 0077
> lvdisplayFinding all logical volumes
> lvdisplay --- Logical volume ---
> lvdisplay LV Name/dev/m
On 02/24/2009 03:34 PM, Matthew Moore wrote:
On Tuesday 24 February 2009 11:49:26 am Ron Johnson wrote:
Though, are there any commands which would indicate whether my LV or
VGs are screwed up? (Fixing them might allow me to get my data back.)
Do you think that your volume descriptors got hose
On Tuesday 24 February 2009 11:49:26 am Ron Johnson wrote:
> Though, are there any commands which would indicate whether my LV or
> VGs are screwed up? (Fixing them might allow me to get my data back.)
Do you think that your volume descriptors got hosed? The main LVM diagnostic
commands are:
pv
On 02/24/2009 06:21 AM, Mark Allums wrote:
Mark Allums wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 02/23/2009 01:52 AM, Mark Allums wrote:
[snip]
0. I have lvm2 running on top of Linux md RAID, and don't actually
have any ext4 file sytem partitions to check, so that particular
fsck command was destined t
Mark Allums wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 02/23/2009 01:52 AM, Mark Allums wrote:
[snip]
0. I have lvm2 running on top of Linux md RAID, and don't actually
have any ext4 file sytem partitions to check, so that particular fsck
command was destined to fail. But it shows it's there, when it's
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 02/23/2009 01:52 AM, Mark Allums wrote:
[snip]
0. I have lvm2 running on top of Linux md RAID, and don't actually
have any ext4 file sytem partitions to check, so that particular fsck
command was destined to fail. But it shows it's there, when it's needed
Except this
On 02/23/2009 01:52 AM, Mark Allums wrote:
[snip]
0. I have lvm2 running on top of Linux md RAID, and don't actually have
any ext4 file sytem partitions to check, so that particular fsck command
was destined to fail. But it shows it's there, when it's needed.
Except this was a virgin fs, w
corrupted!
Can I just do this?
# e2fsck /dev/main_huge_vg/main_huge_lv
You know the usual rules about fsck'ing a mounted file system?
Yup...
ext4 reduces to ext3, or even ext2 as long as you haven't use extents
(and the journal's reasonably clean).
Yep.
So yes.
That&#
this?
# e2fsck /dev/main_huge_vg/main_huge_lv
You know the usual rules about fsck'ing a mounted file system?
Yup...
ext4 reduces to ext3, or even ext2 as long as you haven't use extents
(and the journal's reasonably clean).
Yep.
So yes.
That's what I thought.
Haven&
Ron Johnson wrote:
Hi,
# mount -v -t ext4 /dev/main_huge_vg/main_huge_lv /data/big
$ dmesg | tail -n2
EXT4-fs: ext4_check_descriptors: Block bitmap for group 0 not in group
(block 3120627712)!
EXT4-fs: group descriptors corrupted!
Can I just do this?
# e2fsck /dev/main_huge_vg/main_huge_lv
Hi,
# mount -v -t ext4 /dev/main_huge_vg/main_huge_lv /data/big
$ dmesg | tail -n2
EXT4-fs: ext4_check_descriptors: Block bitmap for group 0 not in
group (block 3120627712)!
EXT4-fs: group descriptors corrupted!
Can I just do this?
# e2fsck /dev/main_huge_vg/main_huge_lv
--
Ron Johnson, Jr
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
On Sunday 2008 December 21 15:00:44 Alex Samad wrote:
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 03:44:04AM -0600, M.Lewis wrote:
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
On Sunday 21 December 2008, "M.Lewis" wrote about
'Re: e2fsck /dev/md0 issues':
Maybe what I sh
On Sunday 2008 December 21 15:00:44 Alex Samad wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 03:44:04AM -0600, M.Lewis wrote:
> > Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> >> On Sunday 21 December 2008, "M.Lewis" wrote about
> >> 'Re: e2fsck /dev/md0 issues':
> >&
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 03:44:04AM -0600, M.Lewis wrote:
>
> Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>> On Sunday 21 December 2008, "M.Lewis" wrote about
>> 'Re: e2fsck /dev/md0 issues':
>>> Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe what I sho
ve these errors though. I'm not sure if it matters, but LVM is not
> installed on /dev/md0.
>
> I've tried all the possible (I think) combinations of 'e2fsck -b x
> /dev/md0' with no luck at all. Google searches have not yet produced
> anything that has seemed
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
On Sunday 21 December 2008, "M.Lewis" wrote about 'Re:
e2fsck /dev/md0 issues':
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
Maybe what I should do is break the array and start over? Making sure
that e2fsck on both drives is good to go beforehand of cour
On Sunday 21 December 2008, "M.Lewis" wrote about 'Re:
e2fsck /dev/md0 issues':
>Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>> I assume that /dev/md0 knows it's size, so the filesystem superblock is
>> bad and you should correct it by resizing the filesystem.
>
&g
I'm confused. It's complaining about bad partition or superblock. You
said I need to resize my fs, but according to fdisk, they are the same.
Aren't they?
Your filesystem isn't on raw partitions. It is on the /dev/md0 device. That
device is 244189984 blocks, as e2fsck told y
k /dev/sda: 1000.2 GB, 1000204886016 bytes
> Disk /dev/sdb: 1000.2 GB, 1000204886016 bytes
>
> I'm confused. It's complaining about bad partition or superblock. You
> said I need to resize my fs, but according to fdisk, they are the same.
> Aren't they?
Your filesystem i
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
On Saturday 2008 December 20 22:42:10 M.Lewis wrote:
The filesystem size (according to the superblock) is 24419 blocks
^
The physical size of the device is 244189984 blocks
On Saturday 2008 December 20 22:42:10 M.Lewis wrote:
> The filesystem size (according to the superblock) is 24419 blocks
^
> The physical size of the device is 244189984 blocks
^
2441900
s not
installed on /dev/md0.
I've tried all the possible (I think) combinations of 'e2fsck -b x
/dev/md0' with no luck at all. Google searches have not yet produced
anything that has seemed to help.
rattler:~# e2fsck /dev/md0
e2fsck 1.41.3 (12-Oct-2008)
The filesystem size (accordi
Christopher - thanks for the clarications.
--
Haines Brown, KB1GRM
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:12:52 -0500
Haines Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I gather one can use the e2fsck with -c option to have it call
> /sbin/badblocks to report bad blocks on an unmounted partition.
This option causes e2fsck to use badblocks(8) program to do a
read-
I gather one can use the e2fsck with -c option to have it call
/sbin/badblocks to report bad blocks on an unmounted partition.
1. Although the -c option causes fsck to use badblocks to identify any
bad blocks present, does e2fsck then proceed to use this information to
fix corruption as usual
So a partition on an external (USB) drive reported problems. I ran e2fsck
on it, repeatedly. I unfortunately didn't capture the output, but it moved
and cleared many inodes. Now when I run "e2fsck -y /dev/sde6" I get the
same problems reported and "fixed" over and o
Rodney Richison wrote:
My system wants me to run e2fsck manually.
How to do this in debian? The machine boots and runs fine.
S, with grub, can I boot somehow not mounted and run e2fsck without
a rescue cd?
I assume you're talking about / here, otherwisae, just umount the
partitio
On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 11:46 -0600, Rodney Richison wrote:
> How to do this in debian?
unmount the partition have have to e2fsck and run it:
# e2fsck /dev/hda2
(for example)
--
A powerfull GroupWare, CMS, CRM, ECM: CPS (Open Source & GPL).
Opengroupware, SPIP, Plone, PhpBB, JetSpeed... a
My system wants me to run e2fsck manually.
How to do this in debian? The machine boots and runs fine.
S, with grub, can I boot somehow not mounted and run e2fsck without
a rescue cd?
--
Highest Regards,
Rodney Richison
RCR Computing
http://www.rcrnet.net
118 N. Broadway
Cleveland, OK 74020
Marco Calviani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> how could i know which partition is causing the ext3 warning?
Rune tune2fs -l on your /dev/hda1, /dev/hda2 ..
And check the mount count information. Eg:
Last mount time: Tue Jun 14 10:49:07 2005
Last write time: Tue Jun 14 15:58:
Hi,
how could i know which partition is causing the ext3 warning?
Regards,
MC
Dennis Stosberg wrote:
Am 15.06.2005 um 10:21 schrieb Marco Calviani:
I've tried to run e2fsck /dev/hda but here are the results:
e2fsck 1.38-WIP (09-May-2005)
Couldn't find ext2 superblock, try
Am 15.06.2005 um 10:21 schrieb Marco Calviani:
> I've tried to run e2fsck /dev/hda but here are the results:
>
> e2fsck 1.38-WIP (09-May-2005)
> Couldn't find ext2 superblock, trying backup blocks...
/dev/hda is your complete hard disk. The ext2 file system you wa
Hi,
i'm running Sid (ext3 fs) on an Acer Travelmate 8005 laptop. It is few
days that i've got this warning from the kernel:
EXT3-fs warning: maximal mount count reached, running e2fsck is recommended
I've tried to run e2fsck /dev/hda but here are the results:
e2fsck 1.38-W
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 09:57:20AM -0700, Richard Weil wrote:
> Can e2fsck repair/cope with physical problems with a disk?
>
> smartmontools found a number of bad blocks on my hard drive. I don't
> remember the exact wording. Other disk parameters seemed fine, i.e.,
> the dis
Can e2fsck repair/cope with physical problems with a disk?
smartmontools found a number of bad blocks on my hard drive. I don't
remember the exact wording. Other disk parameters seemed fine, i.e.,
the disk as a whole was not in imminent danger of failure.
Can e2fsck, or some other pr
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 07:55:29PM +0100, Jonathan Schmitt wrote:
> Hallo,
> >Is there any way to reinstall the root user??
> well basically, that's the problem, lfs users have to deal with during
> install. I think (but You might get more acurate descriptions from
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.o
Hallo,
>Is there any way to reinstall the root user??
well basically, that's the problem, lfs users have to deal with during
install. I think (but You might get more acurate descriptions from
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/ )
their way is to create the passwd file at first, than chroot into the
Jonathan Schmitt wrote:
Hallo
I can NOT any longer log in to the
repaired system, after running e2fsck. All logins fail.
You should look into the /etc directory and check whether or not /etc/passwd
and /etc/passwd- (in case You used shadow Passwords) are present.
To gain access at
Hallo
>I can NOT any longer log in to the
>repaired system, after running e2fsck. All logins fail.
You should look into the /etc directory and check whether or not /etc/passwd
and /etc/passwd- (in case You used shadow Passwords) are present.
To gain access at first, You could boot
I'm running SID on my systems & I was upgrading one of the drives to the
newest version so I did a dist-upgrade. I did not realize it but I had
the other SID system mounted to the file tree. It totally fracked the
second drives file tree ( I guess). I ran e2fsck and found that it was
Am Don, 2003-12-25 um 21.20 schrieb GCS:
[...]
For list-reference:
The problems with cryptoloop disappeared when i applied the -mm2 patch.
No more oopses or corruption AFAICT.
> Sorry, I meant 2.4.23, this bug is fixed there. Also, it's easy to
> 'backport' to earlier kernels, it adds two line
On Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 11:24:16AM +0100, Matthias Hentges <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ugh. So loopback is known to have problems in 2.6.0. I didn't know that,
> thanks for the info.
NP. It knows to have a lot of problems. :-(
> > Sure, but that's an encryted one.
>
> Well i didn't dare to mes
en't an issue for me, i think. This is my private
machine and the only danger would be beeing h4x0r3d over the internet
> > Sadly, the kernel is reproducibly oopsing on me when i try to use e2fsck
> > on an ext3 encrypted cryptoloop file
> 2.6.0 has far too many issues with l
ow it).
>
> oprofile is a kernel profiling tool, one of those "if you don't know
> what it does, you don't need it" sort of deals.
Ah good, i thought so.
> > Sadly, the kernel is reproducibly oopsing on me when i try to use e2fsck
> > on an ext3 encrypted
thought i would give 2.6.0-final
> a try (which doesn't need *any* additional patches).
Do you really want to upgrade your kernel? 2.6.0 still has too much
race-conditions that users can exploit.
> Sadly, the kernel is reproducibly oopsing on me when i try to use e2fsck
> on an ext3 en
tils, reiserfsprogs, xfsprogs and oprofile
> (i do not use JFS, XFS or ReiserFS. Dunno what oprofile is and apt-cache
> doesn't know it).
oprofile is a kernel profiling tool, one of those "if you don't know
what it does, you don't need it" sort of deals.
>
doesn't know it).
Sadly, the kernel is reproducibly oopsing on me when i try to use e2fsck
on an ext3 encrypted cryptoloop file (i did *not* try to e2fsck an
unencrypted
file system because 2.6.0-test11 managed to _corrupt_ [yes,
reproducibly] an encrypted one).
I found that cryptoloop in 2.6.
1 - 100 of 183 matches
Mail list logo
