Bob, np.
I intended to use -r. Below your post is a response to the same question from another list member. All I can say is it seems to work for me. Next time I'll try it again without the -r. I'm sure I'll have occasion to. montefin "Robert D. Hilliard" wrote: > > montefin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > NOTE: If you get a large block of type that mentions a SUPERBLOCK error > > and tells you to do the '-b 8193' thing. Well, that's how you got that > > message, right? Instead I did this: > > > > e2fsck -r /dev/<filesystemname> (my /var looks like /dev/hda7 > > With e2fsprogs 1.18-3, the e2fsck manpage says: > > -r This option does nothing at all; it is provided > only for backwards compatibility. > > What option did you intend to use? (I'm not flaming - I'm > asking for information.) > > Bob > -- Yeah, I know, I read that too. But I'd seen it mentioned in one of Barkakati's books, I think, so I tried it and it worked for me when I was in the same jam as you. And it didn't work without it. But maybe that's just Red Hat or my environemnt, although it's worked for other people I passed it along to. -r is a hold over from FSCK and it's supposed to be e2fsck's default behavior, but there's a lot that isn't quite so about e2fsck. Maybe it's just voodoo for me now, but, hey, if it doesn't do anything, it can't hurt, right? Read those other comments about the internal directives in the e2fsck program. The -b 8193 alternate superblock routine is suggested after _it_ produces the error. And wait until you see the 'bonehead' line in the "maybe it's a bug but it's probably YOU" message. Anyway, I tend not to believe everything I read in man pages. Seriously though. Check to see if you're running e2fsprog along with or as a part of e2fsck on your bootup. It's a little script that shows the pretty hash marks or spinning pinwheel for e2fsck's progress. Well, it was also known to trigger an unnessecary Signal 11 everytime the root filesystem was checked. Not only for a power outage but even when you reached maximum boots without a check. That's no fun. There's a bugfix on the Red Hat 6.1 Errata page http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/rh61-errata-general.html that supposedly corrects that, but I never saw it make a difference. I think it's just e2fsck. I'm not sure if Red Hat fixes can be applied to other Linuxes, but you might want to try it.