Hi!
I've seen the same problem. And I've lost all content of my second hd. After
newfs fsck can't check fs with the same diagnostic.
Dmitry.
On Sat, 21 Oct 2000, John W. De Boskey wrote:
> Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 21:16:56 -0700
> From: "John W. De Boskey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Peter Wemm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: newfs/fsck problem (bad superblocks)
>
> Hi,
>
> I posted a question concerning fsck yesterday. A number of
> people replied with the 'bad harddisk' comment.
>
> I have followed up some more on the problem, and can now
> reproduce it on different filesystems.
>
> Below, I umount my /usr/obj, newfs it, mount it, unmount
> it, and then fsck it. The fsck complains about a bad superblock.
> Also, do not remotely reboot after this if the newly newfs'd
> filesystem is automounted in /etc/fstab. The boot process
> will hang waiting for fsck to be run manually.
>
> Example:
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> %umount /usr/obj
> %newfs /dev/ccd0a
> Warning: 1616 sector(s) in last cylinder unallocated
> /dev/ccd0a: 6666672 sectors in 1628 cylinders of 1 tracks, 4096 sectors
> 3255.2MB in 102 cyl groups (16 c/g, 32.00MB/g, 4096 i/g)
> super-block backups (for fsck -b #) at:
> 32, 65568, 131104, 196640, 262176, 327712, 393248, 458784, 524320, 589856,
> 655392, 720928, 786464, 852000, 917536, 983072, 1048608, 1114144, 1179680,
> 1245216, 1310752, 1376288, 1441824, 1507360, 1572896, 1638432, 1703968,
> 1769504, 1835040, 1900576, 1966112, 2031648, 2097184, 2162720, 2228256,
> 2293792, 2359328, 2424864, 2490400, 2555936, 2621472, 2687008, 2752544,
> 2818080, 2883616, 2949152, 3014688, 3080224, 3145760, 3211296, 3276832,
> 3342368, 3407904, 3473440, 3538976, 3604512, 3670048, 3735584, 3801120,
> 3866656, 3932192, 3997728, 4063264, 4128800, 4194336, 4259872, 4325408,
> 4390944, 4456480, 4522016, 4587552, 4653088, 4718624, 4784160, 4849696,
> 4915232, 4980768, 5046304, 5111840, 5177376, 5242912, 5308448, 5373984,
> 5439520, 5505056, 5570592, 5636128, 5701664, 5767200, 5832736, 5898272,
> 5963808, 6029344, 6094880, 6160416, 6225952, 6291488, 6357024, 6422560,
> 6488096, 6553632, 6619168
> %mount /dev/ccd0a /usr/obj
> %df -m /usr/obj
> Filesystem 1M-blocks Used Avail Capacity Mounted on
> /dev/ccd0a 3201 0 2944 0% /usr/obj
> %umount /usr/obj
> %/sbin/fsck -y /dev/ccd0a
> ** /dev/ccd0a
> BAD SUPER BLOCK: VALUES IN SUPER BLOCK DISAGREE WITH THOSE IN FIRST ALTERNATE
>
> LOOK FOR ALTERNATE SUPERBLOCKS? yes
>
> USING ALTERNATE SUPERBLOCK AT 32
> ** Last Mounted on
> ** Phase 1 - Check Blocks and Sizes
> ** Phase 2 - Check Pathnames
> ** Phase 3 - Check Connectivity
> ** Phase 4 - Check Reference Counts
> ** Phase 5 - Check Cyl groups
> 1 files, 1 used, 1638914 free (18 frags, 204862 blocks, 0.0% fragmentation)
>
> UPDATE STANDARD SUPERBLOCK? yes
>
>
> ***** FILE SYSTEM WAS MODIFIED *****
> %
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
>
> I am wondering about the following patch :
>
> peter 2000/10/16 17:41:37 PDT
>
> Modified files:
> sbin/newfs mkfs.c
> Log:
> Implement simple write combining for newfs - this is particularly useful
> for large scsi disks with WCE = 0. This yields around a 7 times speedup
> on elapsed newfs time on test disks here. 64k clusters seems to be the
> sweet spot for scsi disks using our present drivers.
>
> Revision Changes Path
> 1.30 +38 -1 src/sbin/newfs/mkfs.c
>
>
>
> I will revert this patch tomorrow. I also wonder if this is related
> to the 'make release' problems.
>
>
> Comments welcome.
>
> -John
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
