EXT2 and EXT3 can be treated as the same thing. The only difference is that 3 has journling. The journaling is intentionally a kind of add on. If you mount an ext3 partition as ext2, there will be no difference except that the journaling will be ignored. This allows all the older ext2 tools to work with ext3. This backwards compatibility made ext3 more popular than reiserFS or some of the other better file systems out there.
Kev. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Evan Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 8:30 AM Subject: Re: (clug-talk) kernal panic > I have ext3 file system. > > Evan Brown > > On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 17:19:59 +0200, Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > If you have ext2 type damaged partition the superblok problem can be > > resolved by: > > > > fsck -t ext2 -b 32768 > > > > See the details below: > > -b superblock > > Instead of using the normal superblock, use an alternative > > superblock speci� > > fied by superblock. This option is normally used > > when the primary > > superblock has been corrupted. The location of the > > backup superblock is > > dependent on the filesystem's blocksize. For > > filesystems with 1k block� > > sizes, a backup superblock can be found at block 8193; for > > filesystems with > > 2k blocksizes, at block 16384; and for 4k blocksizes, at > > block 32768. > > > > Additional backup superblocks can be determined by using > > the mke2fs program > > using the -n option to print out where the superblocks > > were created. The > > -b option to mke2fs, which specifies blocksize of the > > filesystem must be > > specified in order for the superblock locations that are > > printed out to be > > accurate. > > > > If an alternative superblock is specified and the > > filesystem is not opened > > read-only, e2fsck will make sure that the primary > > superblock is updated > > appropriately upon completion of the filesystem check. > > > > Ray > > > > Evan Brown wrote: > > > >> Okay so I'm in single user mode, I do a fsck /dev/hdc0 and its says > >> that it can't find a super block. so then I try /hdc1 and it says the > >> same thing so I go into dev and there are like hdb11 - hdt7 like a > >> billion entries. is that right? I didn't think there was supposed to be > >> so many hd* entries. > >> > >> Evan Brown > >> > >> > >> On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 11:09:06 -0700, Evan Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> So by logging into single user mode..how would one do that? and I > >>> would run it on hdc1 ? > >>> > >>> Evan Brown > >>> > >>> On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 10:55:13 -0700, Nathanael Noblet > >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> On Tuesday, November 4, 2003, at 08:25 AM, Evan Brown wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I don't have anything else right now, if it does it again I will > >>>>> though. We had a power outage here last week, could that have > >>>>> affected my file system enough to cause this? is there some kind of > >>>>> scandisk utility to fix stuff besides the integrity check on boot? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I had the same problem awhile ago with a RH 9 box. The cron job that > >>>> updates the locate db would crash the machine. I had to run fsck > >>>> about 3 times to get the filesystem in proper working order. I > >>>> thought the HD was dying and ordered new ones... Now I have new > >>>> hardrives sitting on my desk.;) Anyway I'd guess it is that as well. > >>>> So reboot into single user mode, run fsck on all partitions. Reboot. > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > >
