Thank you for the quick reply, Otto.  I overlooked that option, which is
kind of funny, I know it's saved my butt before.  Anyway, I tried using
alternate superblocks, several of them (picked at random from various spots
within the ones named by newfs -N), and fsck is still dying with the same
error message.

I have been able to mount the filesystem read-only.  I'm not sure what else
to do at this point.  I feel like I'm overlooking something really obvious
and foolish, but I can't quite put my finger on it.  Anybody have any other
ideas?


On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 7:38 AM, Otto Moerbeek <o...@drijf.net> wrote:
>
>  > I have an OpenBSD Virtual Machine (v.5.4) that, unfortunately, got shut
> > down improperly the other day.  This machine had a mounted partition
> > /dev/rwd0j, which disklabel is reporting as a fstype of 4.2BSD (fsize
> 2048,
> > bsize 16384, cgp 1).  The partition is completely full with an encrypted
> > filesystem image, which was mounted at the time of the evil shutdown.
>  When
> > I try to mount the (host [/dev/rwd0j]) partition, I receive an error
> > telling me that the filesystem is not clean and I need to run fsck.
>  When I
> > manually run fsck, I am receiving an error that the 'version of
> filesystem
> > is too old', and that I must update it to a more recent format with 'fsck
> > -c 2', using a version of fsck that is from before release 5.0.
>


>  > Unfortunately, I have vital services on this virtual machine that I
> need to
> > get running again as soon as possible for users other than myself.  I
> have
> > not been able to locate any archive with a binary version of fsck for
> i386
> > from a release of OpenBSD prior to 5.0, nor am I able to find any way
> > around this, at least during the first few dozen times ramming my head
> into
> > the brick wall here.  I would very much appreciate any ideas that anybody
> > might have in order to get this filesystem clean and running again asap.
>


>  Likely you superblock is corrupted, giving a spurious error message
> concerning the fs version.
>
> Try using an alternate superblock, using the -b option (see man page).

Reply via email to