On Sat, 2004-11-20 at 15:32 -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote: > On Sat, 2004-11-20 at 22:02 +0100, Gilles Meier wrote: > > Nothing to do, always the same error :( > > > > Isn't there some method to "repair" the superblocks with jfs_debug or > > some other utility ? > > I would guess that if the partition table could be fixed, there > shouldn't be a need to repair the superblocks. I'm not sure that they > are being read from the right location. I would hope that nothing > overwrote both superblocks. If something had, the file system may be > beyond recovery. > > > > If I've all understood, the only thing who was messed up is the > > partition table, so datas are always on the hdd... I don't have any idea > > on how information are organised in partition table, but can't I > > discover data location with the journal or something else ? > > > (parted) rescue > > Start? 0.000 > > End? 238475.179 > > Information: A jfs primary partition was found at 0.000Mb -> > > 238433.211Mb. Do you want to add it to the partition table? > > Yes/No/Cancel? N > > My guess is that this is a remnant of running mkfs.jfs against /dev/hdd. > I would ingore this one.
After some more thought, and with the results of jfs_debugfs (and Michaels comments), I'm thinking that this is the right partition to use. Some calculations confirm that the secondary superblock is stored .028 Mb from the primary, so the second partition reported by parted is based on interpreting the secondary superblock as the primary. I was assuming that the partition table of a partitioned disk is stored at 0.000Mb, but to be honest, I really don't know where the partition table is stored. Again, based on what I saw in the superblock, the partition needs to be a bit larger than parted is reporting for the superblock be valid. > > Information: A jfs primary partition was found at 0.028Mb -> > > 238433.238Mb. Do you want to add it to the partition table? > > Yes/No/Cancel? N > > This is probably the correct location. Did you try to rescue the disk > using this partition, and then reboot? If you did, and still get the > error from fsck, run jfs_debugfs /dev/hdd1, then the subcommands "sup" > and "sup s". -- Dave Kleikamp IBM Linux Technology Center [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Jfs-discussion mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/mailman/listinfo/jfs-discussion
