FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > EXT3 Users

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 01-16-2009, 11:40 AM
"D Landy"
 
Default Fw: 32k Blocksize Support

Hi again,

First of all, thanks to Eric Sandeen for his offline support.

I'm coming back here at his suggestion as we haven't managed to resolve it.

So far, we've established that it *is* an ext2 filesystem (using file -s),
and that resize2fs reports that it has an invalid superblock.

Eric wrote:


I'd probably dig into why resize2fs says it's corrupt; large block
should not mean corrupt, AFAIK, even if the running kernel can't
actually mount it.


You might get this back on-list, too, so future generations can benefit
from your pain (and in case someone else knows these answers).


Does anyone know if a 32k blocksize would cause resize2fs to report an
invalid superblock? I've downloaded the source code and from what I can see
the maximum block size is 64k, so I wouldn't have thought so - but I'm not a
C programmer and have trouble following the source sometimes.

I'd appreciate another set of eyes going over the code...

Any help greatly appreciated.


David

_______________________________________________
Ext3-users mailing list
Ext3-users@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ext3-users
 
Old 01-16-2009, 02:32 PM
Eric Sandeen
 
Default Fw: 32k Blocksize Support

D Landy wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> First of all, thanks to Eric Sandeen for his offline support.
>
> I'm coming back here at his suggestion as we haven't managed to resolve it.
>
> So far, we've established that it *is* an ext2 filesystem (using file -s),
> and that resize2fs reports that it has an invalid superblock.
>
> Eric wrote:
>
>> I'd probably dig into why resize2fs says it's corrupt; large block
>> should not mean corrupt, AFAIK, even if the running kernel can't
>> actually mount it.
>>
>> You might get this back on-list, too, so future generations can benefit
>> from your pain (and in case someone else knows these answers).
>
> Does anyone know if a 32k blocksize would cause resize2fs to report an
> invalid superblock? I've downloaded the source code and from what I can see
> the maximum block size is 64k, so I wouldn't have thought so - but I'm not a
> C programmer and have trouble following the source sometimes.
>
> I'd appreciate another set of eyes going over the code...
>
> Any help greatly appreciated.

I don't know if they're using a standard ext3 fs or not; perhaps it is
adultrated in some way for their needs that makes it incompatible w/ the
upstream tools.

You could go through the code to find where that message is printed,
then work backwards to why (either via gdb, or printf insertions, or
whatever you're comfortable with...)

-Eric

_______________________________________________
Ext3-users mailing list
Ext3-users@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ext3-users
 
Old 01-18-2009, 08:33 AM
"D Landy"
 
Default Fw: 32k Blocksize Support

Eric Sandeen wrote:


I don't know if they're using a standard ext3 fs or not; perhaps it is
adultrated in some way for their needs that makes it incompatible w/ the
upstream tools.


You could go through the code to find where that message is printed,
then work backwards to why (either via gdb, or printf insertions, or
whatever you're comfortable with...)


Thanks, Eric, that's exactly what I've done.

:-)

Unfortunately there are many different error conditions that could result in
an "invalid superblock" message and it seems like it would be a hard job (at
least for me!) to work out which one it was as I don't know how to compile a
package or even how to get the right source code for Puppy Linux (which I
think is almost Debian compatible).

I guess this is going off-topic now and I should ask on other lists for help
with that?

Any assistance appreciated.


David

_______________________________________________
Ext3-users mailing list
Ext3-users@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ext3-users
 
Old 01-19-2009, 04:10 PM
Eric Sandeen
 
Default Fw: 32k Blocksize Support

D Landy wrote:
> Eric Sandeen wrote:
>
>> I don't know if they're using a standard ext3 fs or not; perhaps it is
>> adultrated in some way for their needs that makes it incompatible w/ the
>> upstream tools.
>>
>> You could go through the code to find where that message is printed,
>> then work backwards to why (either via gdb, or printf insertions, or
>> whatever you're comfortable with...)
>
> Thanks, Eric, that's exactly what I've done.
>
> :-)
>
> Unfortunately there are many different error conditions that could result in
> an "invalid superblock" message and it seems like it would be a hard job (at
> least for me!) to work out which one it was as I don't know how to compile a
> package or even how to get the right source code for Puppy Linux (which I
> think is almost Debian compatible).
>
> I guess this is going off-topic now and I should ask on other lists for help
> with that?
>
> Any assistance appreciated.
>
> David

You could make an e2image and hope someone has enough spare time (I'm
afraid I don't at the moment) to take a look. (assuming e2image will
touch it....)

-Eric

_______________________________________________
Ext3-users mailing list
Ext3-users@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ext3-users
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 01:12 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org