On Oct 25, 2005 14:44 -0400, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote: > On Fri, 2005-10-21 at 15:51 +0100, bloch@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > It appears the original superblock is corrupted too, as it has an inode > > count of 0. When I start fsck with -b 32760, it uses the alternate > > superblock and proceeds. However, it restarts from the beginning a > > couple of times and after the second restart it doesn't use the > > alternate superblock, stopping instead as it can't find the original > > one. > > Do you have a log of the fsck output, and which e2fsprogs version is > this? Sounds like it may be an e2fsck bug if we don't honour the backup > superblock flag on subsequent passes. Actually, my thought would be that in the first pass e2fsck would grab the backup superblock and then overwrite the primary with the recovered superblock. Not 100% positive of that. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Principal Software Engineer Cluster File Systems, Inc. _______________________________________________ Ext3-users@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ext3-users
