On Thu, 8 Oct 2020 at 20:13, Greg Troxel wrote:
>
> David Brownlee writes:
>
> > I have a filesystem failing fsck with "bad inode number 34610688 to
> > nextinode" and its not in a convenient place to copy all data off to
> > rebuild, so I'd like to investigate options to clear the affected
> > i
David Brownlee writes:
> I have a filesystem failing fsck with "bad inode number 34610688 to
> nextinode" and its not in a convenient place to copy all data off to
> rebuild, so I'd like to investigate options to clear the affected
> inode.
>
> The message is triggered from pass1.c
>
>
On Thu, 3 Oct 2013 at 20:42, Christos Zoulas wrote:
>
> On Oct 3, 5:08pm, net...@precedence.co.uk (Stephen Borrill) wrote:
> -- Subject: Re: too many inodes error from fsck
>
> | I tried it, but I read that message as saying that an unknown inode has a
> | link to an invalid
On Oct 3, 5:08pm, net...@precedence.co.uk (Stephen Borrill) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: too many inodes error from fsck
| I tried it, but I read that message as saying that an unknown inode has a
| link to an invalid inode in a linked list and the inode I need to clear is
| the one that references
On Thu, 3 Oct 2013, Christos Zoulas wrote:
On Oct 3, 3:02pm, net...@precedence.co.uk (Stephen Borrill) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: too many inodes error from fsck
| On Thu, 26 Sep 2013, Brett Lymn wrote:
| > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 07:58:12PM +, Christos Zoulas wrote:
| >>
| >> A
On Oct 3, 3:02pm, net...@precedence.co.uk (Stephen Borrill) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: too many inodes error from fsck
| On Thu, 26 Sep 2013, Brett Lymn wrote:
| > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 07:58:12PM +, Christos Zoulas wrote:
| >>
| >> And this is i386 I guess, because the numb
On Thu, 26 Sep 2013, Brett Lymn wrote:
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 07:58:12PM +, Christos Zoulas wrote:
And this is i386 I guess, because the number of inodes is suspect:
... 0x51e4a0ed ... I guess your only chance is to try to fix it
with 64 bit fsck because given the number of inodes the 32
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 07:58:12PM +, Christos Zoulas wrote:
>
> And this is i386 I guess, because the number of inodes is suspect:
>
> ... 0x51e4a0ed ... I guess your only chance is to try to fix it
> with 64 bit fsck because given the number of inodes the 32 bit fsck
> will need to allocate
In article ,
Stephen Borrill wrote:
>1# fsck -fy /dev/rdk0
>** /dev/rdk0
>** File system is already clean
>** Last Mounted on /data
>** Phase 1 - Check Blocks and Sizes
>1288780186 DUP I=317676426
>INCORRECT BLOCK COUNT I=317676426 (8 should be 48)
>CORRECT? yes
>
>1288780182 DUP I=317676427
>128
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 05:20:45PM +0100, Stephen Borrill wrote:
> 1# fsck -fy /dev/rdk0
> ** /dev/rdk0
> ** File system is already clean
> ** Last Mounted on /data
> ** Phase 1 - Check Blocks and Sizes
> 1288780186 DUP I=317676426
> INCORRECT BLOCK COUNT I=317676426 (8 should be 48)
> CORRECT? yes
1# fsck -fy /dev/rdk0
** /dev/rdk0
** File system is already clean
** Last Mounted on /data
** Phase 1 - Check Blocks and Sizes
1288780186 DUP I=317676426
INCORRECT BLOCK COUNT I=317676426 (8 should be 48)
CORRECT? yes
1288780182 DUP I=317676427
1288780183 DUP I=317676428
1288780184 DUP I=3176764
11 matches
Mail list logo