Stephen et al, You may remember me raising the point that the new e2fsprogs (1.25 as I remember) griped about old journals not having all the appropriate fields zeroed. I've just discovered that the RH 7.2 installer produces journals (ie on partitions created as ext3 from within the installer) that flag these warnings with a modified 1.25 e2fsck (the mods being to clear the errors rather than give up). This could be a problem in the future... Nigel. -- [ Nigel Metheringham Nigel.Metheringham@InTechnology.co.uk ] [ Phone: +44 1423 850000 Fax +44 1423 858866 ] [ - Comments in this message are my own and not ITO opinion/policy - ]
On Fri, Mar 01, 2002 at 12:24:34PM +0000, Nigel Metheringham wrote:> > You may remember me raising the point that the new e2fsprogs (1.25 as I > remember) griped about old journals not having all the appropriate > fields zeroed. > > I've just discovered that the RH 7.2 installer produces journals (ie on > partitions created as ext3 from within the installer) that flag these > warnings with a modified 1.25 e2fsck (the mods being to clear the errors > rather than give up). This could be a problem in the future...This sounds like the change which got commited into the e2fsprogs 1.26 tree. (Which has been released already, and 1.27 should be out soon...) So, I don't think it should cause a problem into the future, althogh it would be better if the RH installer didn't do that, since e2fsck does stop and ask a question to OK clearing the relevant journal superblock fields. - Ted
Hi, On Fri, Mar 01, 2002 at 12:24:34PM +0000, Nigel Metheringham wrote:> You may remember me raising the point that the new e2fsprogs (1.25 as I > remember) griped about old journals not having all the appropriate > fields zeroed. > > I've just discovered that the RH 7.2 installer produces journals (ie on > partitions created as ext3 from within the installer) that flag these > warnings with a modified 1.25 e2fsck (the mods being to clear the errors > rather than give up). This could be a problem in the future...I've just been trying to reproduce this, and I can't. With a brand-new root filesystem created by the 7.2 CDs, both e2fsprogs-1.25 and 1.26 pass the fs as clean with no problems. Can you elaborate a bit on what you've been seeing? Cheers, Stephen