search for: e2fsck

...sing. The output from df implies that the files are still there. It shows 861 GB utilized. But du shows only 300 GB of data. I'm sure that there are no processes holding onto deleted files because I have unmounted/mounted the filesystem several times, synced, etc. Here's an excerpt from e2fsck -nf /dev/sdf ... e2fsck 1.32 (09-Nov-2002) Pass 1: Checking inodes, blocks, and sizes Inode 674 has illegal block(s). Clear? no Illegal block #32780 (2552928151) in inode 674. IGNORED. Illegal block #32781 (443979519) in inode 674. IGNORED. Illegal block #32782 (2730682564) in inode 674. IG...

Hi I'm experiencing some problems on a harddisk (it has crashed for no known reason), and in pursuit of getting some of the data out of the disk I'm learning to use the e2fs progs package. Origianlly I used version 1.38, but after experiencing segfaults in e2fsck -which now is solved, I upgraded to 1.39, but now I have hit another problem (on another partition): The partition was formatted as ext3, and debugfs / dumpfs showed that the feature 'has_journal' was present (as expected). The e2fsck command gave the following: # e2fsck -B4096 -b32768 /...

Hello everybody, I am new to this list, so welcome everybody. Last 2 week I had two harddisk crashes with my ext2 file system. This is what sort of happed with both of the disk: I pluged in my USB to SATA converter in my harddisk that has an ext2 filesystem. I mounted the partition, went to a directory that had a DVD image. I mounted the dvd image in the same directory and started watching the

...rec_len=0, name_len=0 kernel: EXT3-fs error (device ide0(3,9)): ext3_readdir: bad entry in directory #2424833: rec_len is smaller than minimal - offset=0, inode=2553887680, rec_len=0, name_len=0 kernel: attempt to access beyond end of device kernel: 03:09: rw=0, want=558629008, limit=53600841 e2fsck complains : e2fsck 1.26 (3-Feb-2002) Group descriptors look bad... trying backup blocks... e2fsck: Attempt to read block from filesystem resulted in short read while checking ext3 journal for /share6 e2fsck: io manager magic bad! What can be done? Thank you, Adrian _____________________________...

...do the same thing; if you know of other such backup programs with such properties, please let me know.) BackupPC works by creating hard link trees, so that files that have not changed across incremental backups. With a large enough filesystem, this is sufficient to cause memory usage issues when e2fsck needs to run a full check on the filesystem. There are two causes of this problem: * Even if directories are equivalent, Unix does not allow directories to be hardlinked, so if a filesystem has 100,000 directories, each incremental backup will create 100,000 new directories in the BackupPC...

From: Wanlong Gao <gaowanlong at cn.fujitsu.com> Tweak the error message "e2fsck -f" and "e2fsck -fy". Indicate the user to use the correct and/or forceall options. Signed-off-by: Wanlong Gao <gaowanlong at cn.fujitsu.com> --- daemon/ext2.c | 9 +++++++-- 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/daemon/ext2.c b/daemon/ext2.c index...

...1 267350 2147483647+ ee EFI GPT Partition 1 has different physical/logical beginnings (non-Linux?): phys=(0, 0, 1) logical=(0, 0, 2) Partition 1 has different physical/logical endings: phys=(1023, 254, 63) logical=(267349, 89, 4) Nor is e2fsprogs (1.35-5.backports.org.1) # e2fsck /dev/sdb1 e2fsck 1.35 (28-Feb-2004) Couldn't find ext2 superblock, trying backup blocks... e2fsck: Bad magic number in super-block while trying to open /dev/sdb1 The superblock could not be read or does not describe a correct ext2 filesystem. If the device is valid and it really contains an e...

Hi, yesterday I ran e2fsck -n on a mounted file system and got: /dev/sdb1 contains a file system with errors, check forced. According to Ted, the lines that followed were not to be trusted due to the fact that the file system was mounted. But this error statement suggests to run a check with the fs unmounted. Today, we...

I've run ext3 filesystems for the last few years and I've never seen this question answered..... If a system shutsdown hard, even with journaling is it at all necessary to run e2fsck? Just curious.... Thanks -- Sam Williams samurai at acm.org +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ +"It is easy to be blinded to the essential uselessness of computers + + by the sense of accomplishment you get...

From: Wanlong Gao <gaowanlong at cn.fujitsu.com> Tweak the error message "e2fsck -f" and "e2fsck -fy". Indicate the user to use the correct and/or forceall options. Signed-off-by: Wanlong Gao <gaowanlong at cn.fujitsu.com> --- daemon/ext2.c | 9 +++++++-- 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/daemon/ext2.c b/daemon/ext2.c index...

On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 08:54:24PM -0700, Keith Keller wrote: > > Heh, I like your understatement. :) I think this helps answer part of > my questions in my second email: I should probably try to preserve > changes from last backup before getting too deep into a tricky e2fsck. > At one point the fs was still mountable, so I could have tried to copy > files off first. (In a physical failure scenario it's exactly what I'd > have done, but I wasn't thinking of that in this case.) Yeah, it would have been nice to have preserved the outputs from earlie...

...ep-2002) for this. now the machine is up and running, but i have to use e2fsprogs 1.27 (8-Mar-2002). it's a debian system and i wanted to stay sane & stable, hence using an older version of e2fsprogs. but now i tried to check my fs and all i get is: root@sheep:/# fsck.ext3 -v /dev/sda8 e2fsck 1.27 (8-Mar-2002) fsck.ext3: Filesystem has unsupported feature(s) (/dev/sda8) e2fsck: Get a newer version of e2fsck! root@sheep:/# ##uuh, 1.30-WIP must be using some features to create a fs, which 1.27 ##does not understand. ##so i grabbed 1.30-WIP and compiled the tools by myself (i can't u...

Tweak the error message "e2fsck -f" and "e2fsck -fy" to "e2fsck-f" and "e2fsck-fy". Signed-off-by: Wanlong Gao <gaowanlong at cn.fujitsu.com> --- daemon/ext2.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++-- 1 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/daemon/ext2.c b/daemon/ext2.c index...

...Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > The "get root inode failed" is rather unfortunate. Heh, I like your understatement. :) I think this helps answer part of my questions in my second email: I should probably try to preserve changes from last backup before getting too deep into a tricky e2fsck. At one point the fs was still mountable, so I could have tried to copy files off first. (In a physical failure scenario it's exactly what I'd have done, but I wasn't thinking of that in this case.) > Try running "debugfs /dev/dm0" > > and then use the "stat /...

e2fsck returns 1 in case of "file system errors corrected". We treat it as success in normal e2fsck, but fail if e2fsck is run by resize2fs. Change 'manual' execution of e2fsck to dedicated function call. --- daemon/ext2.c | 14 ++++---------- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 10 deleti...

Suppose I have the latest and greatest e2fsprogs. >From reading the docs I understand that 1) boot ext3, clean umount - you can remount ext3 or ext2 2) boot ext3, unclean umount - you can remount ext3 - you can e2fsck and remount ext2 Does this mean that normal linux init script e2fsck will do it, in case fstab says ext2? Or you should make sure to run e2fsck by hand with -f? 3) boot ext3, clean umount, boot ext2, unclean umount - what happens if you try mount with ext3 in fstab? does it automatically perform a...

Hi, I'm on kernel 2.14.13-ac8 running Redhat 7.1. I've successfully converted all my file system to ext3 and is working fine for a couple of weeks. However, I did a silly thing when I e2fsck (version 1.23) an ext3 /home partiction without umounting it. Now, I believe my partiton super-block is corrupted and the system wasn't able to mount /home. I tried as suggested to do a e2fsck -b 8193 /dev/hdaX but returned with the "bad magic numer in super-block while trying to open /dev...

...switching between ext2-only and ext3-enabled kernels seamless. Now that if the filesystems have not been unmounted cleanly, due to a power failure for example, "fsck -A -a" cannot continue after checking the root filesystem on reboot, issuing the error msg "/dev/???? is mounted, e2fsck: Cannot continue, aborting." The problem is that e2fsck in e2fsck-1.24 no longer takes into account whether /etc/mtab is writable or not; whenever it finds an mounted entry in /etc/mtab (/proc not mounted yet at this time), it assumes it's already mounted, even though the system has just...

...on. >> >> 3. Also test with ext4, disabling journal >> mkfs.ext4 -O ^has_journal /dev/sda >> >> >> Do you have any suggestion? > > So can you mount the filesystem with errors=remount-ro to avoid clobbering > the fs after the problem happens? And then run e2fsck on the problematic > filesystem and send the output here? > Tested twice, log pasted. Both using fileio, located in host ramfs /tmp Before e2fsck, umount /dev/sda 1. root@(none)$ mount -o errors=remount-ro /dev/sda /mnt [ 22.812053] EXT4-fs (sda): mounted filesystem with ordered data mode...

...on. >> >> 3. Also test with ext4, disabling journal >> mkfs.ext4 -O ^has_journal /dev/sda >> >> >> Do you have any suggestion? > > So can you mount the filesystem with errors=remount-ro to avoid clobbering > the fs after the problem happens? And then run e2fsck on the problematic > filesystem and send the output here? > Tested twice, log pasted. Both using fileio, located in host ramfs /tmp Before e2fsck, umount /dev/sda 1. root@(none)$ mount -o errors=remount-ro /dev/sda /mnt [ 22.812053] EXT4-fs (sda): mounted filesystem with ordered data mode...