Kevin Chadwick schreef op zo 30-12-2012 om 15:37 [+0000]: > On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 15:36:39 +0100 > Jan Stary <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > This should not be an issue (this is also my response to Rogier). > > > Ext3 is nothing more than ext2 with extra journaling features > > > enabled, > > > > So in particular, the ext3 inode structure > > is precisely the ext2 inode structure? > > I know the defaults for inodes on linux have to be changed with -I 128 > these days to be compatible with OpenBSD.
The inodesize is indeed 256 of my ext3 filesystem. So if the only accepted inodesize is 128 that could explain a thing or to. Although this isn't mentioned in mount_ext2fs(8) and the filesystem is mount- and usable for the major part, which shouldn't usually be the case with an incorrect inodesize. Most files are also of approximately the same size, which rules out different inodecounts per file. I also found an old threat[1] where they say they have a patch for accessing ext2 partitions with a different inodesize then 128, although I can't find any information of what ever happened with that patch. > > Also maybe it's just ext4 but I thought it was ext3 too that > requires file carving rather than just recovering deleted files which > would suggest greater differences? > I don't know much about file carving, but what for what I understand of it, it's not possible to do file carving with ext3 and/or ext4, because it leverages on file signatures to restore a file and this is usually overwritten by the journal (please, correct me when I'm wrong). So this shouldn't change the inode layout needed by e2fs to operate on the existing files. (deleted files aren't of my interest at this point). [1] http://openbsd.7691.n7.nabble.com/ext2-with-inode-size-other-than-128b-td165287.html
