Hi On Dienstag, 22. Juli 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] > > Are you sure -29 worked but -30 didn't? This would indicate > > ext3_256byte_inode.diff introduced this regression. > > > > Which version of e2fsprogs did you use to create that ext2fs? > > (and with > > which flags) > > the filesystem is created with an unsupported closed source replication > tool which name i prefer not to write ;-). all i can tell you now is that > the filesystem is ext2 and that it seems clean (i can execute without > problems find, apt-get, etc.) > > i'm on holydays but maybe this afternoon i can make a raid into the > office and get some extra info...
If you do that, I would suggest running a native e2fsck on the ext2 filesystem (or better a copy of it), just to rule out filesystem corruption. While I'm not an expert on ext2 filesystem semantics, s_inode_size getting 0 sounds a bit strange. Of particular interest seems to be the follow paragraph from http://e2fsprogs.sourceforge.net/e2fsprogs-release.html Make the e2fsprogs program more robust so that they will not crash when opening a corrupt filesystem where s_inode_size is zero. Which seems to suggest that the filesystem is indeed corrupt, but that it might also be a rather common corruption? Regards Stefan Lippers-Hollmann
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
