Andy Malato wrote:
I have seen similar postings on this topic in the mail archives, however,
I don't know if this issue has been completly resolved.
I am running OpenAFS 1.2.13 on Solaris 9 with kernel patch 117171-07.
According to what I have read in the archive postings it appears that Sun
has made some changes to the UFS data structures, which causes the OpenAFS
fsck to break.
I get similar messages during each reboot :
checking ufs filesystems
----Open AFS (R) openafs 1.2.13 fsck----
/dev/rdsk/c2t5d1s0: IMPOSSIBLE INTERLEAVE=0 IN SUPERBLOCK (FIXED)
/dev/rdsk/c2t5d1s0: is clean.
----Open AFS (R) openafs 1.2.13 fsck----
/dev/rdsk/c3t5d0s0: IMPOSSIBLE INTERLEAVE=0 IN SUPERBLOCK (FIXED)
/dev/rdsk/c3t5d0s0: is clean.
This is caused by the fsck checking the old lnterleave field
that was replaced.
If I manually run /usr/lib/fs/afs/fsck -y against these devices the
problem appears to go away. However, this still indicates that something
may be wrong and I can't help to have limited confidence in
/usr/lib/fs/afs/fsck should one of the vice partitions need to be
recovered via fsck after a system crash.
I discovered this posting :
https://lists.openafs.org/pipermail/openafs-info/2004-November/015400.html
After adding the required patches and rebuilding, I ran newfs on a few
vice partitions and rebooted, and got the following error message:
checking ufs filesystems
----Open AFS (R) openafs 1.2.13 fsck----
/dev/rdsk/c2t5d1s0: /dev/rdsk/c2t5d1s0: BAD SUPER BLOCK: VALUES IN SUPER
BLOCK DISAGREE WITH THOSE IN FIRST ALTERNATE
/dev/rdsk/c2t5d1s0: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY; RUN fsck MANUALLY.
----Open AFS (R) openafs 1.2.13 fsck----
/dev/rdsk/c3t5d0s0: /dev/rdsk/c3t5d0s0: BAD SUPER BLOCK: VALUES IN SUPER
BLOCK DISAGREE WITH THOSE IN FIRST ALTERNATE
/dev/rdsk/c3t5d0s0: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY; RUN fsck MANUALLY.
An attempt to run fsck manually produces this error :
fsck -y /dev/rdsk/c2t5d1s0
----Open AFS (R) openafs 1.2.13 fsck----
** /dev/rdsk/c2t5d1s0
BAD SUPER BLOCK: VALUES IN SUPER BLOCK DISAGREE WITH THOSE IN FIRST
ALTERNATE
USE AN ALTERNATE SUPER-BLOCK TO SUPPLY NEEDED INFORMATION;
eg. fsck [-F ufs] -o b=# [special ...]
where # is the alternate super block. SEE fsck_ufs(1M).
I then found this posting :
https://lists.openafs.org/pipermail/openafs-info/2004-November/015575.html
I do have logging disabled on all the vice partitions by adding nologging
to the mount options in /etc/vfstab.
Did the partition ever have logging turned on?
Can you debug or add some code to the src/vfsck/setup.c
if (memcmp((char *)&sblock, (char *)&altsblock, (int)sblock.fs_sbsize)) {
to dump these two block to see where the difference is. It was speculated
that the problem was with logging, but there might be some other error.
I could send you some code later today.
I am at a loss here and perhaps I missed something. I'd appreciate any
feedback that anyone can give regarding this matter.
It was speculated that it was logging that caused the problem. There
may be some other problem.
Thanks,
---Andy
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
--
Douglas E. Engert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Argonne National Laboratory
9700 South Cass Avenue
Argonne, Illinois 60439
(630) 252-5444
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
