Hello,
we've experienced that background fsck on 8.1 degrades server performance on a
higher degree than in previous fbsd versions (6.3, 7.3; amd64).
We've noticed it after upgrading - same hardware - to a 8.1-RELEASE.
Now, performance of other services (i.e. apache, mysql) during a
an you test the above patch, and let me know if it looks ok, if you
have a better fix in the works, etc.? It seems to pass the bug you
originally reported when I run:
% env LD_PRELOAD=/home/build/obj/home/build/src/lib/libc/libc.so.7 \
D SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY
>> LOST 74 DIRECTORIES
>>
>> UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY
>> fsck: /dev/aacd0s1f: Segmentation fault: 11
It would be good to know the cause of this segfault so that the code
could be fixed to prevent it.
>> #
>>
On 25 Sep, sam wrote:
> Don Lewis wrote:
>> On 24 Sep, sam wrote:
>>
>>
>>> any solutions ?
>>>
>>
>> The patch below should allow a manual fsck to run to completion. I'd
>> recommend running "fsck -N" and capturing
sam wrote:
Don Lewis wrote:
On 24 Sep, sam wrote:
Expect major file system lossage ...
I think this patch could be better, but this should get you going ...
UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY
LOST 74 DIRECTORIES
UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY
fsck: /dev/aacd0s1f: Segmentation
sblock.fs_ipg will allow
+ * a manual fsck to proceed further instead
+* of dying when it attempts to allocate
+* an insane amount of memory to store
+* the inode info
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:17+0400, sam wrote:
> fsck: illegal option -- N
Try: fsck -n
man fsck should give you some hints on what Don was talking about.
I.e.:
-n Causes fsck to assume no as the answer to all operator questi
Don Lewis wrote:
On 24 Sep, sam wrote:
any solutions ?
The patch below should allow a manual fsck to run to completion. I'd
recommend running "fsck -N" and capturing its output. Then use the clri
# fsck -N
fsck: illegal option -- N
usage: fsck [-dfnpvy
Frank Mayhar wrote:
hi, all
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2007-June/151686.html
my problem
# fsck /dev/aacd0s1f
** /dev/aacd0s1f (NO WRITE)
** Last Mounted on /usr
** Phase 1 - Check Blocks and Sizes
You might also want to try ports/sysutils/ffsrecov2 before
On Mon, 2007-09-24 at 16:30 -0700, Don Lewis wrote:
> On 24 Sep, sam wrote:
> > hi, all
> > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2007-June/151686.html
> >
> > my problem
> > # fsck /dev/aacd0s1f
> > ** /dev/aacd0s1f (NO WRITE)
> > *
On 24 Sep, sam wrote:
> hi, all
> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2007-June/151686.html
>
> my problem
> # fsck /dev/aacd0s1f
> ** /dev/aacd0s1f (NO WRITE)
> ** Last Mounted on /usr
> ** Phase 1 - Check Blocks and Sizes
> fsck_ufs: cannot alloc 2
hi, all
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2007-June/151686.html
my problem
# fsck /dev/aacd0s1f
** /dev/aacd0s1f (NO WRITE)
** Last Mounted on /usr
** Phase 1 - Check Blocks and Sizes
fsck_ufs: cannot alloc 2378019004 bytes for inoinfo
# cat /boot/loader.conf
kern.maxdsiz
And now for something completely different If I can't get the /
usr
partition to work is there any way to recreate the user
directories from
the password file? The contents will be lost but nobody uses their
folder
anyway, I just need all the /usr/home folders created... I could
write a
Thanks! And thanks for the sh recommendation, that easier than what I was
going to do...
At 05:21 AM 9/26/2006, you wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I've got a /usr partition with some problems. During boot it fails and
I'm
> prompted to run fsck manually. I do so a
ing hard read errors,
You may have an error in an important sector so fsck can't fix it.
As an alternative to the dd or cp suggestions, I'd recommend dump:
dump can handle unreadable sectors (though I'm not sure if FreeBSD's
dump will tell you which file or inode the sectors b
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I've got a /usr partition with some problems. During boot it fails and I'm
> prompted to run fsck manually. I do so and when fsck has finished it asks
> me to run it again, and again, and again...
If that happens, I would assume that the disk is
On Mon, 2006-Sep-25 14:41:18 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>The hard drive is in the fridge right now, in case it's a heat problem.
>It's FreeBSD version 4.x. It's getting hard read errors,
You may have an error in an important sector so fsck can't fix it.
As an a
> > Maybe I can mount a dirty partition. I just need the data off it...
> Mount it read-only and get the data off it IMMEDIATELY. I wouldn't try
> fsck-ing on any disk with even a single read or write error. Fsck will
> fail if it can't find a real sector to alloc
Thanks
At 02:53 PM 9/25/2006, you wrote:
On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 02:41:18PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Maybe I can mount a dirty partition. I just need the data off it...
Mount it read-only and get the data off it IMMEDIATELY. I wouldn't try
fsck-ing on an
On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 02:41:18PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Maybe I can mount a dirty partition. I just need the data off it...
Mount it read-only and get the data off it IMMEDIATELY. I wouldn't try
fsck-ing on any disk with even a single read or write error. Fsck w
Hi Peter,
The hard drive is in the fridge right now, in case it's a heat problem.
It's FreeBSD version 4.x. It's getting hard read errors, and I'm using -y
with fsck so it will continue on to the next error without prompting from
me. The same thing happens whether I us
I've got a /usr partition with some problems. During boot it fails and I'm
prompted to run fsck manually. I do so and when fsck has finished it asks
me to run it again, and again, and again...it seems to find the same errors
each time. It never seems to repair anything. It worked fine
On Mon, 2006-Sep-25 12:38:47 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I've got a /usr partition with some problems. During boot it fails and I'm
>prompted to run fsck manually. I do so and when fsck has finished it asks
>me to run it again, and again, and again...it seems to find the
I've got a /usr partition with some problems. During boot it fails and I'm
prompted to run fsck manually. I do so and when fsck has finished it asks
me to run it again, and again, and again...it seems to find the same errors
each time. It never seems to repair anything. It work
On 08/27/06 00:53, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 08:19:40PM -0500, Eric Anderson wrote:
On 08/26/06 07:44, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 07:23:36AM -0500, Eric Anderson wrote:
Hmm - had another panic. Again, screen shots are here:
http://www.googlebi
On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 08:19:40PM -0500, Eric Anderson wrote:
> On 08/26/06 07:44, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> >On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 07:23:36AM -0500, Eric Anderson wrote:
> >>Hmm - had another panic. Again, screen shots are here:
> >>
> >>http://www.googlebit.com/freebsd/snapshots/gjournal_p
On 08/26/06 07:44, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 07:23:36AM -0500, Eric Anderson wrote:
Hmm - had another panic. Again, screen shots are here:
http://www.googlebit.com/freebsd/snapshots/gjournal_panic2/
I can't find panic message. What was it?
It was a deadlock.
Er
On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 07:23:36AM -0500, Eric Anderson wrote:
> Hmm - had another panic. Again, screen shots are here:
>
> http://www.googlebit.com/freebsd/snapshots/gjournal_panic2/
I can't find panic message. What was it?
--
Pawel Jakub Dawidek http://www.wheel.pl
[EMA
On 08/24/06 23:13, Eric Anderson wrote:
On 08/24/06 05:54, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 03:38:15PM -0500, Eric Anderson wrote:
Did you get a chance to look at those screenshots? I'm curious to know if you also think it is gjournal related. I've stopped loading gjournal, a
On 08/24/06 05:54, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 03:38:15PM -0500, Eric Anderson wrote:
Did you get a chance to look at those screenshots? I'm curious to know if you also think it is gjournal related. I've stopped loading gjournal, and I've had no other
related deadlocks.
On 08/24/06 05:54, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 03:38:15PM -0500, Eric Anderson wrote:
Did you get a chance to look at those screenshots? I'm curious to know if you also think it is gjournal related. I've stopped loading gjournal, and I've had no other
related deadlocks.
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 03:38:15PM -0500, Eric Anderson wrote:
> Did you get a chance to look at those screenshots? I'm curious to know if
> you also think it is gjournal related. I've stopped loading gjournal, and
> I've had no other
> related deadlocks.
This patch was not yet merged to RELE
On 08/22/06 15:47, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 03:38:15PM -0500, Eric Anderson wrote:
Did you get a chance to look at those screenshots? I'm curious to know if you also think it is gjournal related. I've stopped loading gjournal, and I've had no other
related deadlocks.
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 03:38:15PM -0500, Eric Anderson wrote:
> Did you get a chance to look at those screenshots? I'm curious to know if
> you also think it is gjournal related. I've stopped loading gjournal, and
> I've had no other
> related deadlocks.
I'm out of town tomorrow, I'll try to
:
I've seen this several times now, but this time I got a dump.
Basically, the system comes up after unclean shutdown, throws a bunch of
filesystems into the background fsck list, and begins 60 seconds later.
After some amount of time, the system will lock up, presumably hung
waiting on
al times now, but this time I got a dump.
> > >> Basically, the system comes up after unclean shutdown, throws a bunch of
> > >> filesystems into the background fsck list, and begins 60 seconds later.
> > >>After some amount of time, the system will lock
comes up after unclean shutdown, throws a bunch of
> >> filesystems into the background fsck list, and begins 60 seconds later.
> >>After some amount of time, the system will lock up, presumably hung
> >> waiting on locks.
> >>
> >> Here's some
this time I got a dump.
Basically, the system comes up after unclean shutdown, throws a bunch of
filesystems into the background fsck list, and begins 60 seconds later.
After some amount of time, the system will lock up, presumably hung
waiting on locks.
Here's some info:
lock type buf
mes now, but this time I got a dump.
> >>>Basically, the system comes up after unclean shutdown, throws a bunch of
> >>>filesystems into the background fsck list, and begins 60 seconds later.
> >>> After some amount of time, the system will lock up, presumably hung
>
stems into the background fsck list, and begins 60 seconds later.
After some amount of time, the system will lock up, presumably hung
waiting on locks.
Here's some info:
lock type bufwait: EXCL (count 1) by thread 0xff0128812980 (pid 804)
lock type getblk: EXCL (count 1)
On 08/17/06 07:25, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 07:08:31AM -0500, Eric Anderson wrote:
I've seen this several times now, but this time I got a dump.
Basically, the system comes up after unclean shutdown, throws a bunch of
filesystems into the background fsck list, and b
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 07:08:31AM -0500, Eric Anderson wrote:
> I've seen this several times now, but this time I got a dump.
> Basically, the system comes up after unclean shutdown, throws a bunch of
> filesystems into the background fsck list, and begins 60 seconds later.
&
I've seen this several times now, but this time I got a dump.
Basically, the system comes up after unclean shutdown, throws a bunch of
filesystems into the background fsck list, and begins 60 seconds later.
After some amount of time, the system will lock up, presumably hung
waiting on
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 04:01:26PM +0200, Julian Stacey wrote:
> - /usr/src/sbin/fsck/fsck.h, maybe I could eg halve one or both of these:
> #define MAXBUFSPACE 40*1024 /* maximum space to allocate to buffers */
> #define INOBUFSIZE 56*1024 /* size of buffer to read inodes
On 4.10-RELEASE with real memory = 10485760 (10240K bytes)
& big disc partition:disklabel ad0s1 sectors/unit: 160071597
#size offsetfstype [fsize bsize bps/cpg]
h: 156613309 34582884.2BSD 2048 1638489 # (Cyl. 215*- 9963*)
On a dirty reboot, fsck hangs si
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> I've done this. The problem is stopping fsck before it starts throwing
> away files. Once you stop fsck, you need to do a 'mount -f ...',
> rename lost+found to something else, unmount the filesystem and
> start lost+found ag
On Wed, 2004-Aug-11 09:58:21 +0200, Wilko Bulte wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 05:54:35PM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote..
>> On Wed, 2004-Aug-11 08:17:39 +0200, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote:
>> >* Charles Sprickman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-08-10 23:52 -0400]:
>> >> I w
On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 05:54:35PM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote..
> On Wed, 2004-Aug-11 08:17:39 +0200, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote:
> >* Charles Sprickman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-08-10 23:52 -0400]:
> >> I was hoping for some option in fsck to allow an alternate lost+found
&
On Wed, 2004-Aug-11 08:17:39 +0200, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote:
>* Charles Sprickman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-08-10 23:52 -0400]:
>> I was hoping for some option in fsck to allow an alternate lost+found
>> directory on another device, but no such luck.
This isn't poss
* Charles Sprickman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-08-10 23:52 -0400]:
> I was hoping for some option in fsck to allow an alternate lost+found
> directory on another device, but no such luck. Is there anything else
> that I'm overlooking? I'm willing to try anything since
age, and I could use
a bit of help with a problem I'm having while running fsck. At some
point during the check, fsck starts complaining that there's not enough
space in "lost+found" and that the file it just rescued will be trashed
instead of being stashed in lost+found.
>Fr
On Sun, May 16, 2004 at 04:44:08PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> Cause I never knew about that? :) I take it that that is the SIGINFO
> refer'd in:
>
> If fsck receives a SIGINFO (see the ``status'' argument for stty(1)) sig-
> nal, a line will be
Cause I never knew about that? :) I take it that that is the SIGINFO
refer'd in:
If fsck receives a SIGINFO (see the ``status'' argument for stty(1)) sig-
nal, a line will be written to the standard output indicating the name of
the device currently being check
how about just hitting ^T?
On Sun, 16 May 2004, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> right now, my fsck is reporting:
>
> ZERO LENGTH DIR I=9222075 OWNER=root MODE=40755
> SIZE=0 MTIME=May 10 17:33 2004
> CLEAR? yes
>
> any way of findign out what the max I= will be, so that
On Sun, 16 May 2004, Dan Nelson wrote:
> In the last episode (May 16), Marc G. Fournier said:
> >
> > right now, my fsck is reporting:
> >
> > ZERO LENGTH DIR I=9222075 OWNER=root MODE=40755
> > SIZE=0 MTIME=May 10 17:33 2004
> > CLEAR? yes
> >
>
In the last episode (May 16), Marc G. Fournier said:
>
> right now, my fsck is reporting:
>
> ZERO LENGTH DIR I=9222075 OWNER=root MODE=40755
> SIZE=0 MTIME=May 10 17:33 2004
> CLEAR? yes
>
> any way of findign out what the max I= will be, so that one can know how
>
right now, my fsck is reporting:
ZERO LENGTH DIR I=9222075 OWNER=root MODE=40755
SIZE=0 MTIME=May 10 17:33 2004
CLEAR? yes
any way of findign out what the max I= will be, so that one can know how
close to the end things are?
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 18:43:03 -0500
> From: "Dan Langille" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: fsck fails - mark sectors as bad?
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> I h
tion worse in many cases.
> After dd'ing the file systems to a safe disk you can try fsck.
I'm finding the dd is challenging:
# dd if=/dev/ad2s1e of=ad1s1e conv=noerror,sync bs=64k
dd: /dev/ad2s1e: Input/output error
6+0 records in
6+0 records out
393216 bytes transferred in 42.776918 sec
try to make a last backup of the complete unmounted file systems with dd.
Trying to fix the file system in place, i.e. on the failing disk that is
about to break down completely, makes the situation worse in many cases.
After dd'ing the file systems to a safe disk you can try fsck.
Björn Fisc
re is what fsk -y finds:
# fsck -y /dev/ad2s1a
** /dev/ad2s1a
** Last Mounted on /
** Phase 1 - Check Blocks and Sizes
CANNOT READ: BLK 3168
CONTINUE? yes
THE FOLLOWING DISK SECTORS COULD NOT BE READ: 3187, 3188, 3189, 3190,
3191, 3192, 3194,
** Phase 2 - Check Pathnames
** Phase 3 - Check Co
David Schultz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > >From my brief research on the subject, the FreeBSD community
> > has been highly resistant to supporting third party filesystems
> > precisely because nobody with such needs as yours has ever
> > contributed the code necessary to make third party fil
Geoff Buckingham wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 01:12:45AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > Yes. Limit the number of CG bitmaps you examine simultaneously,
> > and make the operation multiple pass over the disk. This is not
> > that hard a modification to fsck, and
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003, Andrew Kinney wrote:
> Our experience has been that with 4GB of RAM (or more) you
> really must increase your KVA to 2GB, leaving only 2GB of UVA.
> So, I would concur with what Julian said.
>
> thrown> ;-)
>
> With the lack of third party filesystem support in FreeBSD,
UFS2 will make the filesystem..
All we need is a way to FIX such a filesystem.
My brief analysis of this indicates that a 'serial' fsck should be
possible.
What this would do is read through the filesystem metadata, creating
several 'list' files on another filesystem. These w
On 4 Sep 2003, at 11:53, Julian Elischer wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Tim Kientzle wrote:
>
> > Max Clark wrote:
> > > Ohh, that's an interesting snag. I was under the impression that
> > > 5.x w/ PAE could address more than 4GB of Ram.
> >
> > That's >4G of memory in the system. 32-bit process
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Tim Kientzle wrote:
> Max Clark wrote:
> > Ohh, that's an interesting snag. I was under the impression that 5.x w/ PAE
> > could address more than 4GB of Ram.
>
> That's >4G of memory in the system. 32-bit processors
> are still limited to 4G processor address space, which
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 01:12:45AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
>
> Yes. Limit the number of CG bitmaps you examine simultaneously,
> and make the operation multiple pass over the disk. This is not
> that hard a modification to fsck, and it can be done fairly
> quickly by anyone
performance hit, and move both of
thse to 4G, each, rather than 4G total. That still limits you
to 4G.
> If fsck requires 700K for each 1GB of Disk, we are talking about 7GB of Ram
> for 10TB of disk. Is this correct? Will PAE not function correctly to give
> me 8GB of Ram? To check 10TB o
t to
the considerable effort of rewriting fsck just for PAE.
Even worse, as physical memory grows, so do kernel requirements. At
some point, increasing the physical memory will actually reduce
the memory available per process. Simply put, PAE is a band-aid
that is only useful on systems th
has a 32-bit virtual address space.
If fsck requires 700K for each 1GB of Disk, we are talking about 7GB of Ram
for 10TB of disk. Is this correct? Will PAE not function correctly to give
me 8GB of Ram? To check 10TB of disk?
Another thread suggests that the maximum amount of memory actually availa
other
things have taken their toll.
If fsck requires 700K for each 1GB of Disk, we are talking about 7GB of Ram
for 10TB of disk. Is this correct? Will PAE not function correctly to give
me 8GB of Ram? To check 10TB of disk?
PAE functions correctly but does not provide for 7G address space.
Is
.
>
> - The PAE support allows FreeBSD machines to make use of more than 4
> gigabytes of RAM. This functionality was originally written by Jake
> Burkholder under contract with DARPA and Network Associates Laboratories.
> Additional changes for individual device drivers will follow in t
with DARPA and Network Associates Laboratories.
Additional changes for individual device drivers will follow in the coming
weeks.
If fsck requires 700K for each 1GB of Disk, we are talking about 7GB of Ram
for 10TB of disk. Is this correct? Will PAE not function correctly to give
me 8GB of Ram? To
twork Associates Laboratories.
Additional changes for individual device drivers will follow in the coming
weeks.
If fsck requires 700K for each 1GB of Disk, we are talking about 7GB of Ram
for 10TB of disk. Is this correct? Will PAE not function correctly to give
me 8GB of Ram? To check 10TB of
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 13:09:55 +0200
From: Ruslan Ermilov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Ian Dowse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Kirk McKusick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: fsck -p
Hi!
Today I've got
Hi!
Today I've got a hard lockup with 4.7 box. Upon reboot,
``fsck -p'' was run, and it resulted in the following,
in particular:
/dev/da0s1h: UNREF FILE I=591 OWNER=nobody MODE=100644
/dev/da0s1h: SIZE=81269024 MTIME=Nov 20 09:50 2002 (CLEARED)
/dev/da0s1h: FREE BLK CO
On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 11:41:52PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Brooks Davis wrote:
> > Please comment on the following patch to add a delay before starting
> > background fsck. The issues this addresses is that it takes a long time
> > to start X or other large apps
ee the errors below. I've tried
> an fsck and an fsck -f from single user mode on each of the affected disks
> (7 disk, mix of ide/scsi give this).
>
> FSCK comes through clean. Prior to running -CURRENT the disks where
> attached to a 2.0.8 machine; and the dump prior to the upgr
On Sat, Jun 29, 2002 at 01:09:26PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Not sure if I should blame current - but see the errors below. I've tried
> an fsck and an fsck -f from single user mode on each of the affected disks
> (7 disk, mix of ide/scsi give this).
>
> F
Not sure if I should blame current - but see the errors below. I've tried
an fsck and an fsck -f from single user mode on each of the affected disks
(7 disk, mix of ide/scsi give this).
FSCK comes through clean. Prior to running -CURRENT the disks where
attached to a 2.0.8 machine; and the
On Thu, Dec 27, 2001 at 02:34:40AM -0600, Kevin Day wrote:
You might want to file this as a PR (using send-pr)
so that it can be looked at by the filesystem gurus. I am not to sure
that Kirk keeps up with -hackers
Wilko
> I think I've found a bug in fsck. Some invalid values in
I think I've found a bug in fsck. Some invalid values in cylinder groups
don't get fixed.
>From pass5.c:
if (cg->cg_rotor < newcg->cg_ndblk)
newcg->cg_rotor = cg->cg_rotor;
else
.
The bottom line to all this is that if there is any line in an
/etc/fstab that mounts on "/", fsck will use the device actually
mounted as root, and not the one in the file.
Back to the drawing board.
--
Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>&
Julian Stacey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Maybe it comes from the /etc/fstab that is unpacked into ram disc,
> that is extracted from the 2.88M boot floppy, that is part of a
> bootable CD ?
I checked this, boot.flp contains the stuff under /boot and kernel.gz
and that's it.
Interestingly eno
> There is none. No default fstab exists.
Maybe it comes from the /etc/fstab that is unpacked into ram disc,
that is extracted from the 2.88M boot floppy, that is part of a bootable CD ?
( BTW if you'r going to get into questions around bootable cdroms etc,
it's a frequent area of interest on
There is no Dana, only Zuul...
I think that root gets fsck'ed in the rc files, even if
there is no /etc/fstab, on the theory that that might be
one of the reasons fsck needs to be run.
Fsck normally runs on root when it is mounted r/o, and
root gets mounted r/w only after it passes.
The
On Thu, Jun 07, 2001 at 03:32:19PM -0700, Dave Hayes wrote:
> Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The sixth field, (fs_passno), is used by the fsck(8) program to
> > determine the order in which filesystem checks are done at
> > reboot tim
David O'Brien -Hackers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You mentioned though that your CDROM is /. How about posting the real
> /etc/fstab from your root partition for us to have a look at?
There is none. No default fstab exists.
--
Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - [EMAIL PROTECTED
* Dave Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010607 18:02] wrote:
> If I boot from a CDROM (of my own creation admittedly), fsck -p
> wants to fsck the CD partition, /dev/ad0c. It is mounted as root.
from fstab(5):
The sixth field, (fs_passno), is used by the fsck(8) program to determ
If I boot from a CDROM (of my own creation admittedly), fsck -p
wants to fsck the CD partition, /dev/ad0c. It is mounted as root.
I look at the source and in preen.c I'm not able to see any way for
fsck to do that. Granted I've never looked at fsck source before (I
looked in /usr/src
Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The sixth field, (fs_passno), is used by the fsck(8) program to
> determine the order in which filesystem checks are done at
> reboot time.
Yep, good that you asked this, but not the problem. I not only set
this f
[moved to -fs]
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ian Dowse writes:
>
>Jaye sent me a ktrace.out for the fsck that was failing. It appears
>that the kernel had overshot the end of the superblock fs_csp[] array
>in ffs_mountfs(), since the list of pointers there extended thro
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jaye Mathisen writes:
>
>I have a 930GB vinum volume
>However, I can't fsck it, I have to always use the alternate block.
>newsfeed-inn2# fsck /dev/vinum/v-spool
>** /dev/vinum/v-spool
>BAD SUPER BLOCK: VALUES IN SUPER BLOCK DISAGREE
FreeBSD newsfeed-inn2.meganews.com 4.2-STABLE FreeBSD 4.2-STABLE #2: Fri Jan 5
09:42:37 PST 2001
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/n/FreeBSD/RELENG_4-2000-12-18/src/sys/compile/NEWSFEED-INN3
i386
I have a 930GB vinum volume
newfs -v -i 4194304 /dev/vinum/v-spool
went fine.
However, I can't
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Alexey V. Vatchenko" writes:
: /dev/ad0s2a: NO WRITE ACCESS
: /dev/ad0s2a: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY; RUN fsck MANUALLY.
:
: what is it?
/ is likely mounted on /dev/ad0s2a, so you can't get write access to
/dev/ad0s2a.
Warner
To Unsu
hi guys
i was experementing with writing kernel modules and my kernel panic and my
filesystems too.
when i fsck it tells me
** /dev/ad0s2a (NO WRITE)
** Last Mounted on /
** Root file system
** Phase 1 - Check Blocks and Sizes
** Phase 2 - Check Pathnames
** Phase 3 - Check Connectivity
3.4-stable fsck core dumps. filesystem is ufs, part of a 36gb
ide drive. running "fsck -y /dev/rwd0s2e" produces the
following:
LINK COUNT FILE I=3690915 OWNER=1562247989 MODE=65764
SIZE=9880933937738515337 MTIME=Oct 19 22:53 1905 COUNT 4352 SHOULD BE 1
ADJUST? yes
UNREF FILE
across the following lines in the section 5.1 "file system recovery":
"With the conventional implementation, the fsck utility must be run on
a file system before it can be mounted after any system failure. By
guarateeing that the on-disk metadata can always be used safely (except
when
54-95/
>
> at which the soft updates README's in the FreeBSD tree point and ran
> across the following lines in the section 5.1 "file system recovery":
>
> "With the conventional implementation, the fsck utility must be run on
> a file system before it can be
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
