On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 09:48:40 -0800 (PST)
"Scott I. Remick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> probably wrote:

> --- Sergey 'DoubleF' Zaharchenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I can't find a zero-bad floppy in this place! It's all the holidays!
> That's what AOL disks (vs. discs) used to be good for. :)
> > With `c', they're all offset by 63(why?). But still, you can mount the
> > partitions on the ad4s1, so the disklabel should be ok...
> Yeah. Starts to suggest what we were thinking was a evidence related to the
> problem is really unrelated and "normal" behavior (is disklabel/bsdlabel
> only meant to be run on slices and not bsd-partitions?). Are we looking in
> the wrong place?

After trying out 5.2-RC2, it seems like the offsets reported with the
`c' slice are from the beginning of the disk, not from the beginning of
the slice. That accounts for the +63 difference. I guess it's documented
somewhere, but as I don't use 5.x I haven't read its docs.

> What about that potentially good superblock we found a
> while ago? (the skip 16 one that contained "/data" in it) Should we be
> saving that somewhere while we can? (how?)

I think you already have a copy (the data at offset 32 seems to be it).
If you want, do a

# dd if=/dev/ad6s1 skip=16 count=16 of=/some/file

Please tell me everything what you tried to use to mount/fsck the drive
(and the results, of course).

> Anyone out there know 5.x file-system dirtiness like the back of their hand?
> C'mon, you know you wanna join the fun. :)

Try booting from a 4.x floppy and doing it all over again... The FS is
UFS1, isn't it?

Why does New Jersey have more toxic waste dumps and California have
more lawyers?

New Jersey had first choice.

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to