On Tue, 2005-06-21 at 09:07 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > From: Dave Kleikamp > <snip> > > Unfortunately, the damage extends to the root directory, which can't be > > ignored. Since fsck says that your primary & secondary allocation > > structures don't match, you could try forcing jfs_fsck to use the > > secondary instead of the primary. This untested patch should do that. > <snip> > > That patch doesn't resolve the problem... > > s5n06.hep(rader): sudo ./jfs_fsck -d -f /dev/sda1 > ./jfs_fsck version 1.1.8, 03-May-2005 > processing started: 6/21/2005 8.40.29 > The current device is: /dev/sda1 [xchkdsk.c:1555] > Open(...READ/WRITE EXCLUSIVE...) returned rc = 0 [fsckpfs.c:3227] > Primary superblock is valid. [fsckmeta.c:1559] > The type of file system for the device is JFS. [xchkdsk.c:1572] > Block size in bytes: 4096 [xchkdsk.c:1899] > Filesystem size in blocks: 586057467 [xchkdsk.c:1906] > **Phase 0 - Replay Journal Log [xchkdsk.c:1913] > LOGREDO: Log already redone! [logredo.c:555] > logredo returned rc = 0 [xchkdsk.c:1945] > **Phase 1 - Check Blocks, Files/Directories, and Directory Entries > [xchkdsk.c:2038] > Invalid data (7) detected in file system object MA1. [fsckmeta.c:2465] > Invalid data (8) detected in file system object MA1. [fsckmeta.c:2473] > Invalid data (9) detected in file system object MA1. [fsckmeta.c:2481] > Invalid data (10) detected in file system object MA1. [fsckmeta.c:2489] > Invalid data (11) detected in file system object MA1. [fsckmeta.c:2500] > Invalid data (12) detected in file system object MA1. [fsckmeta.c:2508] > Invalid data (13) detected in file system object MA1. [fsckmeta.c:2516] > Invalid data (14) detected in file system object MA1. [fsckmeta.c:2524] > Secondary metadata inode A1 is corrupt. [fsckmeta.c:2565] > Unable to read the Primary File/Directory Allocation Table. [fsckmeta.c:1897] > Errors detected in the Secondary File/Directory Allocation Table. > [fsckmeta.c:1904] > CANNOT CONTINUE. [fsckmeta.c:1911]
Well, the secondary seems to be in worse shape than the primary, so this experiment didn't help. > The file system now appears in the same sorry shape as the file > system a colleage of mine experienced with the exactly same hardware > and os... > > http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=10804175 > > What'dya make of that? In that case, there was no mention of any problems with the hardware underneath the file system. In your case, you mentioned that there was a raid problem (hiccup) that triggered the jfs failures. > Fwiw (nothing??), I patched around the failure above... I wouldn't expect anything to succeed at this point. > ugh. yeah... > steve > - - - > systems & network manager > high energy physics > university of wisconsin > -- David Kleikamp IBM Linux Technology Center ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles, informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click _______________________________________________ Jfs-discussion mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jfs-discussion
