Re: e2fsck detail check

[Jude DaShiell]

Thanks much, highly informative.
On Sun, 30 Dec 2018, David wrote:

> Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2018 18:18:41
> From: David 
> To: debian-user 
> Subject: Re: e2fsck detail check
> Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2018 23:19:07 + (UTC)
> Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org
>
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2018 at 05:20, Jude DaShiell  wrote:
> >
> > I have a question about the -c fd command line switch.  Would the valid
> > options for fd be stdin stdout and stderr?
>
> The file descriptor fd is a number. It is defined by the parent process.
> The parent process is typically the shell you use to start e2fsck
> interactively, or the shell script that starts e2fsck.
>
> You can read about file descriptors here:
> http://mywiki.wooledge.org/FileDescriptor
>
> The e2fsck man page also explains that if you precede the
> fd number with a minus sign, then e2fsck will defer writing to the
> file descriptor until it receives a SIGUSR1 signal. This is a
> extra feature specific to e2fsck that has nothing to do
> with file descriptors in general.
>
> You can read about signals here:
> http://mywiki.wooledge.org/SignalTrap
>
>

-- 

Re: e2fsck detail check

[David]

On Sun, 30 Dec 2018 at 05:20, Jude DaShiell  wrote:
>
> I have a question about the -c fd command line switch.  Would the valid
> options for fd be stdin stdout and stderr?

The file descriptor fd is a number. It is defined by the parent process.
The parent process is typically the shell you use to start e2fsck
interactively, or the shell script that starts e2fsck.

You can read about file descriptors here:
http://mywiki.wooledge.org/FileDescriptor

The e2fsck man page also explains that if you precede the
fd number with a minus sign, then e2fsck will defer writing to the
file descriptor until it receives a SIGUSR1 signal. This is a
extra feature specific to e2fsck that has nothing to do
with file descriptors in general.

You can read about signals here:
http://mywiki.wooledge.org/SignalTrap

Re: e2fsck detail check

[Grzesiek Sójka]

On 12/29/18 7:20 PM, Jude DaShiell wrote:

I have a question about the -c fd command line switch.  Would the valid
options for fd be stdin stdout and stderr?
I may need to provide remote support for someone and it will be helpful if
e2fsck can show completion percentage as any repair happens.


I use -C 0 (the capital "C")

--
Pozdrawiam
Grzesiek

Wysłane z kompa wolnego od wirusów Billa Gatesa.

e2fsck detail check

[Jude DaShiell]

I have a question about the -c fd command line switch.  Would the valid
options for fd be stdin stdout and stderr?
I may need to provide remote support for someone and it will be helpful if
e2fsck can show completion percentage as any repair happens.



--

Re: e2fsck automatique au boot

[list]

Bonjour.

Merci à vous tous.

J'ai trouvé ma/mes solutions.
L'option «defaults» résout le problème.
L'utilitaire tune2fs me donne plein d'infos et de paramétrages
possibles.
Bien sur, fsck.xxx, est de la partie.

Merci encore à tous ! 

À bientôt.



Le Tue, 13 Jun 2017 09:35:47 +0200,
Haricophile  a écrit :

> Le Tue, 13 Jun 2017 06:43:33 +0200,
> "Pierre L."  a écrit :
> 
> > J'ai souvenir qu'il existait une commande (à l'époque Ubuntesque...)
> > pour connaître le nombre de reboots restants avant un scan auto... à
> > voir si ca fonctionne encore !  
> 
> tune2fs (installer e2tools je crois)
> 

Re: e2fsck automatique au boot

[Haricophile]

Le Tue, 13 Jun 2017 06:43:33 +0200,
"Pierre L."  a écrit :

> J'ai souvenir qu'il existait une commande (à l'époque Ubuntesque...)
> pour connaître le nombre de reboots restants avant un scan auto... à
> voir si ca fonctionne encore !

tune2fs (installer e2tools je crois)

-- 
haricoph...@aranha.fr 

Re: e2fsck automatique au boot

[Pierre L.]

Salut,

Il me semble effectivement que le disque a besoin d'être automatiquement
monté via fstab au boot pour qu'il soit automatiquement "scanné" par
e2fsck. Si tu le montes à la main, le système ne devrait logiquement pas
y avoir accès, et ca râle ?

Ca peut valoir le coup de voir ce que ca donne avec ce disque
automatiquement monté au boot ? ;)
Au passage, j'utilise généralement pour mes disques de stockage ta même
config pour ton autre disque

defaults0   2 

et tout se passe pénard ;)

J'ai souvenir qu'il existait une commande (à l'époque Ubuntesque...)
pour connaître le nombre de reboots restants avant un scan auto... à
voir si ca fonctionne encore !




Le 13/06/2017 à 00:26, list a écrit :
> Bonjour.
>
> Ah forcément il fallait que j'oublie quelque chose dans ma
> description...
>
> Alors effectivement ce disque apparaît dans le fstab.
>
> UUID="d845-2f8x-40xx-88xx-630b4891819" /mnt/Ledisqueext3
> rw,users,noauto 0   2
>
> Mais je le monte uniquement «à la main» quand nécessaire
> (mount /mnt/Ledisque) 
>
> Le problème viendrait de là ? 
> Un autre disque, qui ne présente pas le «problème»,  est quant à lui
> avec les options suivantes dans le fstab : 
>
> defaults0   2 
>
>
> Une piste à explorer ? 
>
>
> Cordialement.
>
>
>
>
>
>  Le Mon, 12 Jun 2017 22:04:11 +0200 (CEST),
> l...@worldonline.fr a écrit :
>
>> Bonsoir
>>
>> C'est un disque monté avec fstab ?
>>
>  
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: e2fsck automatique au boot

[list]

Bonjour.

Ah forcément il fallait que j'oublie quelque chose dans ma
description...

Alors effectivement ce disque apparaît dans le fstab.

UUID="d845-2f8x-40xx-88xx-630b4891819" /mnt/Ledisqueext3
rw,users,noauto 0   2

Mais je le monte uniquement «à la main» quand nécessaire
(mount /mnt/Ledisque) 

Le problème viendrait de là ? 
Un autre disque, qui ne présente pas le «problème»,  est quant à lui
avec les options suivantes dans le fstab : 

defaults0   2 


Une piste à explorer ? 


Cordialement.





 Le Mon, 12 Jun 2017 22:04:11 +0200 (CEST),
l...@worldonline.fr a écrit :

> Bonsoir
> 
> C'est un disque monté avec fstab ?
> 
 

Re: e2fsck automatique au boot

[lann]

Bonsoir

C'est un disque monté avec fstab ?

- Mail original -
De: "list" <l...@contacte.xyz>
À: debian-user-french@lists.debian.org
Envoyé: Dimanche 11 Juin 2017 00:44:51
Objet: e2fsck automatique au boot

Salut la liste.

Debian 8.7 
En regardant les logs je tombe sur un : 

kernel: EXT4-fs (sdc7): warning: maximal mount count reached, running
e2fsck is recommended

Un petit : systemctl status
systemd-fsck@dev-disk-by\x2duuid-d845dba2\x2d2f87\x2d40b7\x2d881c\x2d630f47931810.service

me donne : 
 Loaded: loaded (/lib/systemd/system/systemd-fsck@.service; static)
   Active: inactive (dead)
 Docs: man:systemd-fsck@.service(8)

J'ai tenté un : 

systemctl start
systemd-fsck@dev-disk-by\x2duuid-d845dba2\x2d2f87\x2d40b7\x2d881c\x2d630f47931810.service

Ça bloque et je me fais insulter dans les logs : 

systemd[1]: Dependency failed for File System Check
on /dev/disk/byx2duuid/d845dba2x2d2f87x2d40b7x2d881cx2d630f47931810

Bien sûr, je réponds avec fierté à l'insulte : 

 systemctl list-dependencies
 
systemd-fsck@dev-disk-by\x2duuid-d845dba2\x2d2f87\x2d40b7\x2d881c\x2d630f47931810.service

systemd-fsck@dev-disk-byx2duuid-d845dba2x2d2f87x2d40b7x2d881cx2d630f47931810.service
● └─system-systemd\x2dfsck.slice

Mais j'en reste là...piteusement battu...


Donc, un de mes disques durs  n'est plus vérifié après un certain nombre
de «montage» comme avant systemd (pas de critique ici, simplement un
comportement différent que je ne maîtrise pas ni ne comprend, pour le
moment) 

Un peu de lumière dans cette obscurité ? 

Avant le crash... 


Amicalement.

e2fsck automatique au boot

[list]

Salut la liste.

Debian 8.7 
En regardant les logs je tombe sur un : 

kernel: EXT4-fs (sdc7): warning: maximal mount count reached, running
e2fsck is recommended

Un petit : systemctl status
systemd-fsck@dev-disk-by\x2duuid-d845dba2\x2d2f87\x2d40b7\x2d881c\x2d630f47931810.service

me donne : 
 Loaded: loaded (/lib/systemd/system/systemd-fsck@.service; static)
   Active: inactive (dead)
 Docs: man:systemd-fsck@.service(8)

J'ai tenté un : 

systemctl start
systemd-fsck@dev-disk-by\x2duuid-d845dba2\x2d2f87\x2d40b7\x2d881c\x2d630f47931810.service

Ça bloque et je me fais insulter dans les logs : 

systemd[1]: Dependency failed for File System Check
on /dev/disk/byx2duuid/d845dba2x2d2f87x2d40b7x2d881cx2d630f47931810

Bien sûr, je réponds avec fierté à l'insulte : 

 systemctl list-dependencies
 
systemd-fsck@dev-disk-by\x2duuid-d845dba2\x2d2f87\x2d40b7\x2d881c\x2d630f47931810.service

systemd-fsck@dev-disk-byx2duuid-d845dba2x2d2f87x2d40b7x2d881cx2d630f47931810.service
● └─system-systemd\x2dfsck.slice

Mais j'en reste là...piteusement battu...


Donc, un de mes disques durs  n'est plus vérifié après un certain nombre
de «montage» comme avant systemd (pas de critique ici, simplement un
comportement différent que je ne maîtrise pas ni ne comprend, pour le
moment) 

Un peu de lumière dans cette obscurité ? 

Avant le crash... 


Amicalement.

Re: Les mystères de tune2fs et de e2fsck

[Sébastien NOBILI]

Le mardi 22 décembre 2015 à 12:49, jdd a écrit :
> Le 22/12/2015 12:45, MERLIN Philippe a écrit :
> 
> >N'arrivant pas à vous l'envoyer dans le corps du message certainement un
> >caractère parasite, le résultat de tune2fs se trouve dans le fichier en P.J.
> 
> moi je l'ai eu dans les trois messages, mais je n'ai pas la réponse :-(

Pas de réponse non plus mais un point qui m'interpelle :

Last checked: Wed Oct 28 20:38:41 2015
Next check after: Fri Nov 27 20:38:41 2015 *

Ces deux dates sont loin dans le passé (plus d'un mois) ça expliquerait
peut-être que le scan soit lancé ?

As-tu essayé de lancer manuellement e2fsck ? Est-ce que ces dates sont
cohérentes ensuite ?

Sébastien

Re: Les mystères de tune2fs et de e2fsck

[MERLIN Philippe]

Le lundi 28 décembre 2015, 14:48:14 Sébastien NOBILI a écrit :
> Le mardi 22 décembre 2015 à 12:49, jdd a écrit :
> > Le 22/12/2015 12:45, MERLIN Philippe a écrit :
> > >N'arrivant pas à vous l'envoyer dans le corps du message certainement un
> > >caractère parasite, le résultat de tune2fs se trouve dans le fichier en
> > >P.J.> 
> > moi je l'ai eu dans les trois messages, mais je n'ai pas la réponse :-(
> 
> Pas de réponse non plus mais un point qui m'interpelle :
> 
> Last checked: Wed Oct 28 20:38:41 2015
> Next check after: Fri Nov 27 20:38:41 2015 *
> 
> Ces deux dates sont loin dans le passé (plus d'un mois) ça expliquerait
> peut-être que le scan soit lancé ?
> 
> As-tu essayé de lancer manuellement e2fsck ? Est-ce que ces dates sont
> cohérentes ensuite ?
> 
> Sébastien
Merci pour vos réponses, je n'ai pas beaucoup avancé, mais j'ai trouvé un bug 
qui décrivait le 
même problème, mais malheureusement il ne semble pas avoir intéressé beaucoup 
de 
monde.
Je réponds à la question oui les dates sont cohérentes et c'est bien là le 
problème.
J'ai modifié avec tune2fs et j'ai mis 95  comme montage max avant check et 
e2fsck a bien été 
lancé automatiquement.
Au cours de ce lancement il est écrit e2fsck de util-linux. Toujours il est 
certain 
qu'actuellement  il n'y a pas possibilité contrairement à ce qui est mis dans 
la documentation 
d'effectuer un check à intervalle de temps donné.
Philippe Merlin
P.S. En approfondissant plus il y a un warning au démarrage indiquant que l'on 
a dépassé le 
max temps, mais comme c'est noyé dans tous les messages de démarrage

Les mystères de tune2fs et de e2fsck

[MERLIN Philippe]

Bonjour,
Mon système est une Debian Sid AMD64, suite au fait que la debian Sid Kde est 
en période d'instabilité obligeant de redémarrer le système plusieurs fois par 
jour pour pouvoir travailler, j'ai modifié avec l'aide de tune2fs la 
périodicité de 
la vérification du système par e2fsck, j'ai supprimer la vérification par le 
nombre de montage et je l'ai remplacé par un intervalle de temps :1mois du 
moins c'est ce que j'espérais mais à l'usage cela ne fonctionne pas. Ai je fait 
une 
erreur voilà la sortie de tune2fs
tune2fs -l /dev/sda6 
*Maximum mount count:  -1 Last checked: Wed Oct 28 20:38:41 
2015 
Check interval:   2592000 (1 month) Next check after: Fri Nov 
27 
20:38:41 2015 *

Philippe Merlin

Re: Les mystères de tune2fs et de e2fsck

[MERLIN Philippe]

Le mardi 22 décembre 2015, 12:15:22 MERLIN Philippe a écrit :
> Bonjour,
> Mon système est une Debian Sid AMD64, suite au fait que la debian Sid Kde
> est en période d'instabilité obligeant de redémarrer le système plusieurs
> fois par jour pour pouvoir travailler, j'ai modifié avec l'aide de tune2fs
> la périodicité de la vérification du système par e2fsck, j'ai supprimer la
> vérification par le nombre de montage et je l'ai remplacé par un intervalle
> de temps :1mois du moins c'est ce que j'espérais mais à l'usage cela ne
> fonctionne pas. Ai je fait une erreur voilà la sortie de tune2fs
> tune2fs -l /dev/sda6
> *Maximum mount count:  -1 Last checked: Wed Oct 28 20:38:41
> 2015 Check interval:   2592000 (1 month) Next check after:
> Fri Nov 27 20:38:41 2015 *
> 
> Philippe Merlin
En examinant le message envoyé la sortie de tune2fs a disparu et mon message ne 
devient 
pas très compréhensible
tune2fs -l /dev/sda6 

Re: Les mystères de tune2fs et de e2fsck

[jdd]

Le 22/12/2015 12:45, MERLIN Philippe a écrit :


N'arrivant pas à vous l'envoyer dans le corps du message certainement un
caractère parasite, le résultat de tune2fs se trouve dans le fichier en P.J.


moi je l'ai eu dans les trois messages, mais je n'ai pas la réponse :-(

jdd

Re: Les mystères de tune2fs et de e2fsck

[MERLIN Philippe]

Le mardi 22 décembre 2015, 12:29:44 MERLIN Philippe a écrit :
> Le mardi 22 décembre 2015, 12:25:34 MERLIN Philippe a écrit :
> > Le mardi 22 décembre 2015, 12:15:22 MERLIN Philippe a écrit :
> > > Bonjour,
> > > Mon système est une Debian Sid AMD64, suite au fait que la debian Sid
> > > Kde
> > > est en période d'instabilité obligeant de redémarrer le système
> > > plusieurs
> > > fois par jour pour pouvoir travailler, j'ai modifié avec l'aide de
> > > tune2fs
> > > la périodicité de la vérification du système par e2fsck, j'ai supprimer
> > > la
> > > vérification par le nombre de montage et je l'ai remplacé par un
> > > intervalle
> > > de temps :1mois du moins c'est ce que j'espérais mais à l'usage cela ne
> > > fonctionne pas. Ai je fait une erreur voilà la sortie de tune2fs
> > > tune2fs -l /dev/sda6
> > > *Maximum mount count:  -1 Last checked: Wed Oct 28
> > > 20:38:41
> > > 2015 Check interval:   2592000 (1 month) Next check after:
> > > Fri Nov 27 20:38:41 2015 *
> > > 
> > > Philippe Merlin
> > 
> > En examinant le message envoyé la sortie de tune2fs a disparu et mon
> > message ne devient pas très compréhensible
> > tune2fs -l /dev/sda6
> 
> tune2fs -l /dev/sda6
N'arrivant pas à vous l'envoyer dans le corps du message certainement un 
caractère 
parasite, le résultat de tune2fs se trouve dans le fichier en P.J.
Excusez moi.
tune2fs 1.42.13 (17-May-2015)
Filesystem volume name:   linux
Last mounted on:  /
Filesystem UUID:  cfefa5bd-93c0-4451-818e-26207c170c14
Filesystem magic number:  0xEF53
Filesystem revision #:1 (dynamic)
Filesystem features:  has_journal ext_attr resize_inode dir_index filetype 
needs_recovery sparse_super large_file
Filesystem flags: signed_directory_hash 
Default mount options:(none)
Filesystem state: clean
Errors behavior:  Continue
Filesystem OS type:   Linux
Inode count:  24944640
Block count:  99747072
Reserved block count: 4987353
Free blocks:  55024886
Free inodes:  24336132
First block:  0
Block size:   4096
Fragment size:4096
Reserved GDT blocks:  1000
Blocks per group: 32768
Fragments per group:  32768
Inodes per group: 8192
Inode blocks per group:   512
Filesystem created:   Wed May 20 21:34:17 2009
Last mount time:  Tue Dec 22 11:07:24 2015
Last write time:  Tue Dec 22 11:07:12 2015
Mount count:  91
Maximum mount count:  -1
Last checked: Wed Oct 28 20:38:41 2015
Check interval:   2592000 (1 month)
Next check after: Fri Nov 27 20:38:41 2015
Lifetime writes:  12 TB
Reserved blocks uid:  0 (user root)
Reserved blocks gid:  0 (group root)
First inode:  11
Inode size:   256
Required extra isize: 28
Desired extra isize:  28
Journal inode:8
First orphan inode:   2154588
Default directory hash:   half_md4
Directory Hash Seed:  928b34fd-2dc8-46c0-9cc6-45491a440ccf
Journal backup:   inode blocks

Re: e2fsck dans crontab

[andre_debian]

On Wednesday 01 July 2015 14:38:02 Sébastien NOBILI wrote:
 Le mercredi 01 juillet 2015 à 14:21, andre_deb...@numericable.fr a écrit :
  Le script du fichier binaire verifsda2 :
#!/bin/bash
e2fsck -p /dev/sda2

 Script ou fichier binaire, il va falloir choisir.
 Un fichier binaire contient des données binaires qu'on ne pourra donc pas
 lire avec un éditeur de texte. En général, dans le cas d'un exécutable,
 c'est le résultat d'une compilation.
 Un script est (dans le cas qui nous intéresse ici) un fichier texte (donc
 pas binaire) contenant une succession de commandes à exécuter (voire des
 tests si tu es joueur et que tu as du temps à perdre).
 Là c'est donc bien d'un script qu'on parle.
  La ligne de crontab :
  30 7   * * *   /opt/adm/./verifsda2

 Tu n'as pas répondu à deux questions :
 - dans la crontab de quel utilisateur as-tu mis cette ligne ? :
root
 - vois-tu des lignes Cron correspondant au lancement de ton script dans
 les journaux système ? :
Aucune erreur dans /var/log/cron

Si je tape à la mano :
# e2fsck /dev/sda2
sda2 : propre, 643311/19537920 fichiers, 5140180/78120078 blocs 
(vérification dans 3 montages).

Ce qui veut dire que même si je lance la commande de vérification
du système de fichiers, il va quand même le faire tous les X montages.

André

--
Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question :
http://wiki.debian.org/fr/FrenchLists

Pour vous DESABONNER, envoyez un message avec comme objet unsubscribe
vers debian-user-french-requ...@lists.debian.org
En cas de soucis, contactez EN ANGLAIS listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150702.21494.andre_deb...@numericable.fr

Re: e2fsck dans crontab

[Guillaume]

Bonjour,

il faut utiliser comme ceci pour forcer le check:

e2fsck -f /dev/sda2

Le 02/07/2015 11:11, andre_deb...@numericable.fr a écrit :

On Wednesday 01 July 2015 14:38:02 Sébastien NOBILI wrote:

Le mercredi 01 juillet 2015 à 14:21, andre_deb...@numericable.fr a écrit :

Le script du fichier binaire verifsda2 :

#!/bin/bash
e2fsck -p /dev/sda2

Script ou fichier binaire, il va falloir choisir.
Un fichier binaire contient des données binaires qu'on ne pourra donc pas
lire avec un éditeur de texte. En général, dans le cas d'un exécutable,
c'est le résultat d'une compilation.
Un script est (dans le cas qui nous intéresse ici) un fichier texte (donc
pas binaire) contenant une succession de commandes à exécuter (voire des
tests si tu es joueur et que tu as du temps à perdre).
Là c'est donc bien d'un script qu'on parle.

La ligne de crontab :
30 7   * * *   /opt/adm/./verifsda2

Tu n'as pas répondu à deux questions :
 - dans la crontab de quel utilisateur as-tu mis cette ligne ? :

root

 - vois-tu des lignes Cron correspondant au lancement de ton script dans
les journaux système ? :

Aucune erreur dans /var/log/cron

Si je tape à la mano :
# e2fsck /dev/sda2
sda2 : propre, 643311/19537920 fichiers, 5140180/78120078 blocs
(vérification dans 3 montages).

Ce qui veut dire que même si je lance la commande de vérification
du système de fichiers, il va quand même le faire tous les X montages.

André




--
Guillaume

--
Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question :
http://wiki.debian.org/fr/FrenchLists

Pour vous DESABONNER, envoyez un message avec comme objet unsubscribe
vers debian-user-french-requ...@lists.debian.org
En cas de soucis, contactez EN ANGLAIS listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5595101c.1020...@gwilhom.fr

Re: e2fsck dans crontab

[daniel huhardeaux]

Le 01/07/2015 14:21, andre_deb...@numericable.fr a écrit :
Le mercredi 01 juillet 2015 à 12:01, andre_deb...@numericable.fr a 
écrit :

J'ai mis dans crontab un fichier binaire de vérification de partition
une fois par jour : # e2fsck /dev/sda2




Perso dans les scripts executes avec cron, je mets toujours le chemin 
complet. Dans ton cas /sbin/e2fsck


--
Daniel

--
Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question :
http://wiki.debian.org/fr/FrenchLists

Pour vous DESABONNER, envoyez un message avec comme objet unsubscribe
vers debian-user-french-requ...@lists.debian.org
En cas de soucis, contactez EN ANGLAIS listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5593eb5f.4000...@tootai.net

Re: e2fsck dans crontab

[Sébastien NOBILI]

Bonjour,

Le mercredi 01 juillet 2015 à 12:01, andre_deb...@numericable.fr a écrit :
 J'ai mis dans crontab un fichier binaire de vérification de partition 
 une fois par jour : # e2fsck /dev/sda2

Plus précisément, tu as ajouté une ligne de texte dans la crontab pour planifier
le lancement d'une commande, ladite commande étant un binaire (ce qui ne change
rien par rapport au lancement d'un script).

 Je l'ai testé, il fonctionne très bien :
 #!/bin/bash
 e2fsck -p /dev/sda2

Ça c'est plutôt un script…

 La partition sda2 est montée et démontée 24 fois par jour,
 (une fois/heure) pour sauvegarde.
 
 Lorsque je lance manuellement e2fsck /dev/sda2, 
 je reçois cette réponse :
 la partition a été montée 60 fois sans vérification :
 ce qui voudrait dire que la vérif. quotidienne via crontab
 ne se fait pas.
 
 Si vous avez une explication... d'une erreur dans le fichier
 binaire... grand merci.

Le fichier binaire (e2fsck) est standard dans la distrib. Si il devait y avoir
une erreur, tu la verrais sûrement dans les rapports de bugs…

Tu parles d'un fichier binaire mais tu nous montres un script… Lequel des deux
est-ce que tu tentes de lancer via Cron ?

Cron écrit dans les journaux système. Tu devrais donc y trouver des traces du
lancement de ta commande. Est-ce le cas ?

La ligne que tu as ajouté à la crontab est-elle correctement formatée ?
Pourrais-tu la coller ici ?

Dans la crontab de quel utilisateur as-tu ajouté cette ligne ?

Sébastien

-- 
Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question :
http://wiki.debian.org/fr/FrenchLists

Pour vous DESABONNER, envoyez un message avec comme objet unsubscribe
vers debian-user-french-requ...@lists.debian.org
En cas de soucis, contactez EN ANGLAIS listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/20150701113931.ga31...@sebian.nob900.homeip.net

e2fsck dans crontab

[andre_debian]

Bonjour,

J'ai mis dans crontab un fichier binaire de vérification de partition 
une fois par jour : # e2fsck /dev/sda2
Je l'ai testé, il fonctionne très bien :
#!/bin/bash
e2fsck -p /dev/sda2

La partition sda2 est montée et démontée 24 fois par jour,
(une fois/heure) pour sauvegarde.

Lorsque je lance manuellement e2fsck /dev/sda2, 
je reçois cette réponse :
la partition a été montée 60 fois sans vérification :
ce qui voudrait dire que la vérif. quotidienne via crontab
ne se fait pas.

Si vous avez une explication... d'une erreur dans le fichier
binaire... grand merci.

André


--
Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question :
http://wiki.debian.org/fr/FrenchLists

Pour vous DESABONNER, envoyez un message avec comme objet unsubscribe
vers debian-user-french-requ...@lists.debian.org
En cas de soucis, contactez EN ANGLAIS listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/201507011201.26086.andre_deb...@numericable.fr

Re: e2fsck dans crontab

[Pascal Hambourg]

andre_deb...@numericable.fr a écrit :
 
 J'ai mis dans crontab un fichier binaire de vérification de partition 
 une fois par jour : # e2fsck /dev/sda2
 Je l'ai testé, il fonctionne très bien :
 #!/bin/bash
 e2fsck -p /dev/sda2
 
 La partition sda2 est montée et démontée 24 fois par jour,
 (une fois/heure) pour sauvegarde.
 
 Lorsque je lance manuellement e2fsck /dev/sda2, 
 je reçois cette réponse :
 la partition a été montée 60 fois sans vérification :
 ce qui voudrait dire que la vérif. quotidienne via crontab
 ne se fait pas.

T'es-tu assuré que la vérification quotidienne ne se déclenchait pas au
même moment qu'un des montages ?

-- 
Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question :
http://wiki.debian.org/fr/FrenchLists

Pour vous DESABONNER, envoyez un message avec comme objet unsubscribe
vers debian-user-french-requ...@lists.debian.org
En cas de soucis, contactez EN ANGLAIS listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5593ca65.7070...@plouf.fr.eu.org

Re: e2fsck dans crontab

[andre_debian]

On Wednesday 01 July 2015 13:09:25 Pascal Hambourg wrote:
 T'es-tu assuré que la vérification quotidienne ne se déclenchait pas au
 même moment qu'un des montages ? :

Je viens de modifier en ce sens. Je vais tester...

On Wednesday 01 July 2015 13:39:31 Sébastien NOBILI wrote:
 Le mercredi 01 juillet 2015 à 12:01, andre_deb...@numericable.fr a écrit :
  J'ai mis dans crontab un fichier binaire de vérification de partition
  une fois par jour : # e2fsck /dev/sda2

 Plus précisément, tu as ajouté une ligne de texte dans la crontab pour
 planifier le lancement d'une commande, ladite commande étant un binaire (ce
 qui ne change rien par rapport au lancement d'un script).

  Je l'ai testé, il fonctionne très bien :
Le script du fichier binaire verifsda2 :
  #!/bin/bash
  e2fsck -p /dev/sda2

 Ça c'est plutôt un script…
 Le fichier binaire (e2fsck) est standard dans la distrib. Si il devait y
 avoir une erreur, tu la verrais sûrement dans les rapports de bugs…
 Tu parles d'un fichier binaire mais tu nous montres un script… Lequel des
 deux est-ce que tu tentes de lancer via Cron ?
 Cron écrit dans les journaux système. Tu devrais donc y trouver des traces
 du lancement de ta commande. Est-ce le cas ?
 La ligne que tu as ajouté à la crontab est-elle correctement formatée ?
 Pourrais-tu la coller ici ?
 Dans la crontab de quel utilisateur as-tu ajouté cette ligne ?
 Sébastien :

C'est un fichier binaire contenant le script ci-dessus.

La ligne de crontab :
30 7   * * *   /opt/adm/./verifsda2

Le fichier verifsda2  contient le script cité.
Il est bien en mode exécution (a+x).

André

--
Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question :
http://wiki.debian.org/fr/FrenchLists

Pour vous DESABONNER, envoyez un message avec comme objet unsubscribe
vers debian-user-french-requ...@lists.debian.org
En cas de soucis, contactez EN ANGLAIS listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/201507011421.35654.andre_deb...@numericable.fr

Re: e2fsck dans crontab

[Sébastien NOBILI]

Le mercredi 01 juillet 2015 à 14:21, andre_deb...@numericable.fr a écrit :
 Le script du fichier binaire verifsda2 :
   #!/bin/bash
   e2fsck -p /dev/sda2

Script ou fichier binaire, il va falloir choisir.

Un fichier binaire contient des données binaires qu'on ne pourra donc pas lire
avec un éditeur de texte. En général, dans le cas d'un exécutable, c'est le
résultat d'une compilation.

Un script est (dans le cas qui nous intéresse ici) un fichier texte (donc pas
binaire) contenant une succession de commandes à exécuter (voire des tests si tu
es joueur et que tu as du temps à perdre).

Là c'est donc bien d'un script qu'on parle.

 La ligne de crontab :
 30 7   * * *   /opt/adm/./verifsda2

OK ça m'a l'air correct. Le « ./ » en milieu de chemin ne sert à rien mais ne
gêne pas non plus.

 Le fichier verifsda2  contient le script cité.
 Il est bien en mode exécution (a+x).

OK c'est un bon point.

Tu n'as pas répondu à deux questions :
- dans la crontab de quel utilisateur as-tu mis cette ligne ?
- vois-tu des lignes Cron correspondant au lancement de ton script dans les
  journaux système ?

Sébastien

-- 
Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question :
http://wiki.debian.org/fr/FrenchLists

Pour vous DESABONNER, envoyez un message avec comme objet unsubscribe
vers debian-user-french-requ...@lists.debian.org
En cas de soucis, contactez EN ANGLAIS listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/20150701123802.gb31...@sebian.nob900.homeip.net

Re: e2fsck errror: Error reading block (Attempt to read block from filesystem resulted in short read)

[Kamaraju S Kusumanchi]

lee wrote:

 Kamaraju S Kusumanchi raju.mailingli...@gmail.com writes:
 
 When I ran

 $sudo e2fsck -c -c -f -v /dev/sdb7

 I am getting a lot of errors such as

 Error reading block 18022401 (Attempt to read block from filesystem
 resulted
 in short read) while reading inode and block bitmaps.  Ignore errory?
 yes Force rewritey? yes
 3) Is the drive going bad and need to be replaced?
 
 Corresponding entries in /var/log/syslog about the inability to read
 sectors from this device would indicate that there is a hardware
 problem. Provided that all connections and the power supply are ok, I
 would say the device is broken when there are such errors in syslog.
 
 In case there aren't errors in syslog, I would look somewhere else
 first.

Yes, there are I/O errors in syslog such as

Aug 30 08:27:20 kusumanchi kernel: [118453.218041] Buffer I/O error on 
device sdb7, logical block 5384272
Aug 30 08:27:20 kusumanchi kernel: [118453.219839] Buffer I/O error on 
device sdb7, logical block 5384273
Aug 30 08:27:20 kusumanchi kernel: [118453.221584] Buffer I/O error on 
device sdb7, logical block 5384274
Aug 30 08:27:20 kusumanchi kernel: [118453.223310] Buffer I/O error on 
device sdb7, logical block 5384275
Aug 30 08:27:20 kusumanchi kernel: [118453.224973] Buffer I/O error on 
device sdb7, logical block 5384276
Aug 30 08:27:20 kusumanchi kernel: [118453.226582] Buffer I/O error on 
device sdb7, logical block 5384277
Aug 30 08:27:20 kusumanchi kernel: [118453.228158] Buffer I/O error on 
device sdb7, logical block 5384278
Aug 30 08:27:20 kusumanchi kernel: [118453.229713] Buffer I/O error on 
device sdb7, logical block 5384279



 
 Are you really still using ext2fs?

The partitions are ext3. Is there a better command to check ext3 partitions 
other than ext2fs?

 Besides, is the device in question an SSD disk connected via USB? Why
 would anyone connect an SSD drive via USB? And do you get the same
 errors in syslog with an SSD drive as you get with an SATA or SCSI
 drive? SSDs don't really have sectors, do they?

No, this is not an SSD drive. It is the ordinary (IDE?) drive with an 
enclosure connected via USB. I do not have any experience with SSD drives.

thanks
-- 
Kamaraju S Kusumanchi
http://malayamaarutham.blogspot.com/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/k27gri$7jt$1...@ger.gmane.org

Re: e2fsck errror: Error reading block (Attempt to read block from filesystem resulted in short read)

[Jon Dowland]

On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 11:39:37PM +0700, Sthu Deus wrote:
 You have to understand: You have to connect it to the controller
 directly OR You can not use what the SMART offers to You. That simple.

This is not actually true. Yes, the majority of USB hard drives do not support
SMART, but some do. See
http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/smartmontools/wiki/Supported_USB-Devices,
which tells me that lucky me, my WD Elements Desktop 2TB is supported.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120905124315.GB31962@debian

Re: e2fsck errror: Error reading block (Attempt to read block from filesystem resulted in short read)

[lee]

Kamaraju S Kusumanchi raju.mailingli...@gmail.com writes:

 lee wrote:

 Kamaraju S Kusumanchi raju.mailingli...@gmail.com writes:
 
 When I ran

 $sudo e2fsck -c -c -f -v /dev/sdb7

 I am getting a lot of errors such as

 Error reading block 18022401 (Attempt to read block from filesystem
 resulted
 in short read) while reading inode and block bitmaps.  Ignore errory?
 yes Force rewritey? yes
 3) Is the drive going bad and need to be replaced?
 
 Corresponding entries in /var/log/syslog about the inability to read
 sectors from this device would indicate that there is a hardware
 problem. Provided that all connections and the power supply are ok, I
 would say the device is broken when there are such errors in syslog.
 
 In case there aren't errors in syslog, I would look somewhere else
 first.

 Yes, there are I/O errors in syslog such as

 Aug 30 08:27:20 kusumanchi kernel: [118453.218041] Buffer I/O error on 
 device sdb7, logical block 5384272

That seems to indicate that the disk is broken. At first I thought these
messages look different from what I've seen, but googling shows quite
some agreement that messages like this tell you that the disk is
damaged.

 Are you really still using ext2fs?

 The partitions are ext3. Is there a better command to check ext3 partitions 
 other than ext2fs?

See man fsck ... running fsck -t ext2 probably ends up doing the same
thing as calling the fs-type specific checking tool directly, though.


-- 
Debian testing amd64


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87d320s2sw@yun.yagibdah.de

Re: e2fsck errror: Error reading block (Attempt to read block from filesystem resulted in short read)

[Sthu Deus]

Good time of the day, Jon.


Thank You for Your correction.
You wrote:

  You have to understand: You have to connect it to the controller
  directly OR You can not use what the SMART offers to You. That
  simple.
 
 This is not actually true. Yes, the majority of USB hard drives do
 not support SMART, but some do. See
 http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/smartmontools/wiki/Supported_USB-Devices,
 which tells me that lucky me, my WD Elements Desktop 2TB is supported.

We will hope OP is lucky also.


Sthu.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5048395f.ed7a980a.658e.0...@mx.google.com

Re: e2fsck errror: Error reading block (Attempt to read block from filesystem resulted in short read)

[Sthu Deus]

Good time of the day, Kamaraju.


You wrote:

 Yes, there are I/O errors in syslog such as
 
 Aug 30 08:27:20 kusumanchi kernel: [118453.218041] Buffer I/O error
 on device sdb7, logical block 5384272
 Aug 30 08:27:20 kusumanchi kernel: [118453.219839] Buffer I/O error
 on device sdb7, logical block 5384273
 Aug 30 08:27:20 kusumanchi kernel: [118453.221584] Buffer I/O error
 on device sdb7, logical block 5384274
 Aug 30 08:27:20 kusumanchi kernel: [118453.223310] Buffer I/O error
 on device sdb7, logical block 5384275
 Aug 30 08:27:20 kusumanchi kernel: [118453.224973] Buffer I/O error
 on device sdb7, logical block 5384276
 Aug 30 08:27:20 kusumanchi kernel: [118453.226582] Buffer I/O error
 on device sdb7, logical block 5384277
 Aug 30 08:27:20 kusumanchi kernel: [118453.228158] Buffer I/O error
 on device sdb7, logical block 5384278
 Aug 30 08:27:20 kusumanchi kernel: [118453.229713] Buffer I/O error
 on device sdb7, logical block 5384279

It seems that the *ATA-USB controller just quitted from its work
- therefore it is not the HDD failure - simply reset the controller.


Sthu.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50483978.5086980a.14ad.0...@mx.google.com

Re: e2fsck errror: Error reading block (Attempt to read block from filesystem resulted in short read)

[Sthu Deus]

Good time of the day, Kamaraju.


You wrote:

 May be I am missing something here. The USB hard drive I am talking
 is very similar to http://www.amazon.com/Iomega-Prestige-Portable-
 SuperSpeed-35192/dp/B004NIAG5E/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top . The case
 can't be removed.

You have to understand: You have to connect it to the controller
directly OR You can not use what the SMART offers to You. That simple.

Personally, I do not believe that the HDD is not extractable -
speaking in general.


Sthu.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50462eca.6327700a.6991.f...@mx.google.com

Re: e2fsck errror: Error reading block (Attempt to read block from filesystem resulted in short read)

[Andrei POPESCU]

On Ma, 04 sep 12, 23:39:37, Sthu Deus wrote:
 
 Personally, I do not believe that the HDD is not extractable -
 speaking in general.

To quote an uncle of mine, one only needs a persuader (read: hammer) 
:D

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: e2fsck errror: Error reading block (Attempt to read block from filesystem resulted in short read)

[Sthu Deus]

Good time of the day, Andrei.


You wrote:

 To quote an uncle of mine, one only needs a persuader (read:
 hammer) :D

You have very wise uncle! :o)


Sthu.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50463907.a808700a.782f.f...@mx.google.com

Re: e2fsck errror: Error reading block (Attempt to read block from filesystem resulted in short read)

[Dan Ritter]

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 11:40:55PM -0400, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi wrote:
 Dan Ritter wrote:
 
  On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 09:28:20AM -0400, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi wrote:
  4) What might have caused this problem and how to prevent it in the
  future?
  
  I don't know, but in my experience, USB-connected hard disks
  suffer these problems much more than PATA/SATA/eSATA/SCSI/SAS
  disks do.
  
 
 What about solid state hard drives that can be connected via USB drive? I 
 heard solid state hard drives are more dependable (but expensive) than the 
 usual (IDE?) ones. Does USB connection matter there too?

I haven't any experience with those, other than thumb-sized
sticks and the like. I suspect the problem is the USB connection
rather than the drive technology.

-dsr-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120902135040.gp4...@randomstring.org

Re: e2fsck errror: Error reading block (Attempt to read block from filesystem resulted in short read)

[lee]

Kamaraju S Kusumanchi raju.mailingli...@gmail.com writes:

 When I ran

 $sudo e2fsck -c -c -f -v /dev/sdb7

 I am getting a lot of errors such as

 Error reading block 18022401 (Attempt to read block from filesystem resulted 
 in short read) while reading inode and block bitmaps.  Ignore errory? yes
 Force rewritey? yes
 3) Is the drive going bad and need to be replaced?

Corresponding entries in /var/log/syslog about the inability to read
sectors from this device would indicate that there is a hardware
problem. Provided that all connections and the power supply are ok, I
would say the device is broken when there are such errors in syslog.

In case there aren't errors in syslog, I would look somewhere else
first.

Are you really still using ext2fs?


Besides, is the device in question an SSD disk connected via USB? Why
would anyone connect an SSD drive via USB? And do you get the same
errors in syslog with an SSD drive as you get with an SATA or SCSI
drive? SSDs don't really have sectors, do they?


-- 
Debian testing amd64


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87mx18320v@yun.yagibdah.de

Re: e2fsck errror: Error reading block (Attempt to read block from filesystem resulted in short read)

[Kamaraju S Kusumanchi]

Federico Alberto Sayd wrote:

 Did you try to diagnose your hardrive with smartmontools? Smartmontools
 uses S.M.A.R.T.[1] technology included in harddrives, and displays info
 about predictable failures, time of use, etc.
 
 Regards
 
 [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.M.A.R.T.

$smartctl -a /dev/sdb
smartctl 5.41 2011-06-09 r3365 [i686-linux-3.0.0-1-686-pae] (local build)
Copyright (C) 2002-11 by Bruce Allen, http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net

/dev/sdb: Unknown USB bridge [0x059b:0x0571 (0x000)]
Smartctl: please specify device type with the -d option.

Use smartctl -h to get a usage summary

What device type should I specify? This is what I get from dmesg when I 
connect the hard drive

[123948.292055] usb 1-1: new high speed USB device number 11 using ehci_hcd
[123948.425272] usb 1-1: New USB device found, idVendor=059b, idProduct=0571
[123948.425280] usb 1-1: New USB device strings: Mfr=10, Product=11, 
SerialNumber=3
[123948.425287] usb 1-1: Product: Iomega HDD
[123948.425292] usb 1-1: Manufacturer: Iomega
[123948.425296] usb 1-1: SerialNumber: 50609854
[123948.426280] scsi7 : usb-storage 1-1:1.0
[123949.466729] scsi 7:0:0:0: Direct-Access ST950032 5AS   
PQ: 0 ANSI: 2 CCS
[123949.493174] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdb] 976773168 512-byte logical blocks: (500 
GB/465 GiB)
[123949.493931] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdb] Write Protect is off
[123949.493936] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdb] Mode Sense: 28 00 00 00
[123949.494673] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdb] No Caching mode page present
[123949.494679] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdb] Assuming drive cache: write through
[123949.497805] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdb] No Caching mode page present
[123949.497810] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdb] Assuming drive cache: write through
[123949.733091]  sdb: sdb1 sdb2 sdb3 sdb4  sdb5 sdb6 sdb7 sdb8 
[123949.736964] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdb] No Caching mode page present
[123949.736969] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdb] Assuming drive cache: write through
[123949.736973] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdb] Attached SCSI disk

Also, sometimes when I try to mount the partition, I get
$pmount /dev/sdb7
[124321.902673] FAT-fs (sdb7): bogus number of reserved sectors
[124321.918675] FAT-fs (sdb7): bogus number of reserved sectors

I am sorry I am a bit naive when it comes to hard drive failures. Any help I 
can get is appreciated.

thanks
raju
-- 
Kamaraju S Kusumanchi
http://malayamaarutham.blogspot.com/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/k1ns90$3gj$1...@ger.gmane.org

Re: e2fsck errror: Error reading block (Attempt to read block from filesystem resulted in short read)

[Sthu Deus]

Good time of the day, Kamaraju.


You wrote:

 $smartctl -a /dev/sdb
 smartctl 5.41 2011-06-09 r3365 [i686-linux-3.0.0-1-686-pae] (local
 build) Copyright (C) 2002-11 by Bruce Allen,
 http://smartmontools.sourceforge.net
 
 /dev/sdb: Unknown USB bridge [0x059b:0x0571 (0x000)]
 Smartctl: please specify device type with the -d option.
 
 Use smartctl -h to get a usage summary
 
 What device type should I specify? This is what I get from dmesg when
 I connect the hard drive
 
 [123948.292055] usb 1-1: new high speed USB device number 11 using
 ehci_hcd [123948.425272] usb 1-1: New USB device found,
 idVendor=059b, idProduct=0571 [123948.425280] usb 1-1: New USB device
 strings: Mfr=10, Product=11, SerialNumber=3
 [123948.425287] usb 1-1: Product: Iomega HDD
 [123948.425292] usb 1-1: Manufacturer: Iomega
 [123948.425296] usb 1-1: SerialNumber: 50609854
 [123948.426280] scsi7 : usb-storage 1-1:1.0
 [123949.466729] scsi 7:0:0:0: Direct-Access ST950032
 5AS PQ: 0 ANSI: 2 CCS
 [123949.493174] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdb] 976773168 512-byte logical blocks:
 (500 GB/465 GiB)
 [123949.493931] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdb] Write Protect is off
 [123949.493936] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdb] Mode Sense: 28 00 00 00
 [123949.494673] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdb] No Caching mode page present
 [123949.494679] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdb] Assuming drive cache: write through
 [123949.497805] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdb] No Caching mode page present
 [123949.497810] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdb] Assuming drive cache: write through
 [123949.733091]  sdb: sdb1 sdb2 sdb3 sdb4  sdb5 sdb6 sdb7 sdb8 
 [123949.736964] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdb] No Caching mode page present
 [123949.736969] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdb] Assuming drive cache: write through
 [123949.736973] sd 7:0:0:0: [sdb] Attached SCSI disk
 
 Also, sometimes when I try to mount the partition, I get
 $pmount /dev/sdb7
 [124321.902673] FAT-fs (sdb7): bogus number of reserved sectors
 [124321.918675] FAT-fs (sdb7): bogus number of reserved sectors
 
 I am sorry I am a bit naive when it comes to hard drive failures. Any
 help I can get is appreciated.
 
 thanks
 raju

You will not be able to do so until You connect Your drive to computer
directly - i.e. through PATA/SATA cable.


Sthu.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/503f991b.046c980a.69f1.2...@mx.google.com

Re: e2fsck errror: Error reading block (Attempt to read block from filesystem resulted in short read)

[Kamaraju S Kusumanchi]

Sthu Deus wrote:
 
 You will not be able to do so until You connect Your drive to computer
 directly - i.e. through PATA/SATA cable.
 

This is an external USB hard drive. The only connection it has is USB. So, I 
guess in this case smartctl is not much useful.

-- 
Kamaraju S Kusumanchi
http://malayamaarutham.blogspot.com/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/k1oas2$acl$1...@ger.gmane.org

Re: e2fsck errror: Error reading block (Attempt to read block from filesystem resulted in short read)

[Dan Ritter]

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 09:28:20AM -0400, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi wrote:
 1) Does this mean there are badblocks on my hard drive?

Yes.

 2) Am I correct in choosing yes to both these questions or is there a 
 better way?

Yes.

 3) Is the drive going bad and need to be replaced?

Yes.

 4) What might have caused this problem and how to prevent it in the future?

I don't know, but in my experience, USB-connected hard disks
suffer these problems much more than PATA/SATA/eSATA/SCSI/SAS
disks do.

 5) Is the filesystem on this partition corrupted?

Possibly. If you get to the end of the fsck and run it again,
and it comes up clean, then the filesystem is OK. Nevertheless,
it's time to get a new disk and copy everything you want off.

-dsr-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120830195152.gi4...@randomstring.org

Re: e2fsck errror: Error reading block (Attempt to read block from filesystem resulted in short read)

[Lisi]

On Thursday 30 August 2012 19:17:14 Kamaraju S Kusumanchi wrote:
 Sthu Deus wrote:
  You will not be able to do so until You connect Your drive to computer
  directly - i.e. through PATA/SATA cable.

 This is an external USB hard drive. The only connection it has is USB. So,
 I guess in this case smartctl is not much useful.

You could take it out of the enclosure and connect it directly.  That is what 
is being suggested.

Lisi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201208302130.23863.lisi.re...@gmail.com

Re: e2fsck errror: Error reading block (Attempt to read block from filesystem resulted in short read)

[Sthu Deus]

Kamaraju, You wrote:

  You will not be able to do so until You connect Your drive to
  computer directly - i.e. through PATA/SATA cable.
  
 
 This is an external USB hard drive. The only connection it has is
 USB. So, I guess in this case smartctl is not much useful.

And You can not disassemble it?


Sthu.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/503fd952.7067980a.52cd.2...@mx.google.com

Re: e2fsck errror: Error reading block (Attempt to read block from filesystem resulted in short read)

[Kamaraju S Kusumanchi]

Sthu Deus wrote:

 Kamaraju, You wrote:
 
  You will not be able to do so until You connect Your drive to
  computer directly - i.e. through PATA/SATA cable.
  
 
 This is an external USB hard drive. The only connection it has is
 USB. So, I guess in this case smartctl is not much useful.
 
 And You can not disassemble it?
 
 

May be I am missing something here. The USB hard drive I am talking is very 
similar to http://www.amazon.com/Iomega-Prestige-Portable-
SuperSpeed-35192/dp/B004NIAG5E/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top . The case can't be 
removed.

raju
-- 
Kamaraju S Kusumanchi
http://malayamaarutham.blogspot.com/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/k1pbh1$500$1...@ger.gmane.org

Re: e2fsck errror: Error reading block (Attempt to read block from filesystem resulted in short read)

[Kamaraju S Kusumanchi]

Dan Ritter wrote:

 On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 09:28:20AM -0400, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi wrote:
 4) What might have caused this problem and how to prevent it in the
 future?
 
 I don't know, but in my experience, USB-connected hard disks
 suffer these problems much more than PATA/SATA/eSATA/SCSI/SAS
 disks do.
 

What about solid state hard drives that can be connected via USB drive? I 
heard solid state hard drives are more dependable (but expensive) than the 
usual (IDE?) ones. Does USB connection matter there too?

Thanks for answers to my other questions as well.

raju
-- 
Kamaraju S Kusumanchi
http://malayamaarutham.blogspot.com/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/k1pbt5$94i$1...@ger.gmane.org

e2fsck errror: Error reading block (Attempt to read block from filesystem resulted in short read)

[Kamaraju S Kusumanchi]

When I ran

$sudo e2fsck -c -c -f -v /dev/sdb7

I am getting a lot of errors such as

Error reading block 18022401 (Attempt to read block from filesystem resulted 
in short read) while reading inode and block bitmaps.  Ignore errory? yes
Force rewritey? yes
Error reading block 19562497 (Attempt to read block from filesystem resulted 
in short read) while reading inode and block bitmaps.  Ignore errory? yes
Force rewritey? yes
Error reading block 19824640 (Attempt to read block from filesystem resulted 
in short read) while reading inode and block bitmaps.  Ignore errory? yes
Force rewritey? yes
Error reading block 19824641 (Attempt to read block from filesystem resulted 
in short read) while reading inode and block bitmaps.  Ignore errory? yes
Force rewritey? yes

1) Does this mean there are badblocks on my hard drive?
2) Am I correct in choosing yes to both these questions or is there a 
better way?
3) Is the drive going bad and need to be replaced?
4) What might have caused this problem and how to prevent it in the future?
5) Is the filesystem on this partition corrupted?

thanks
raju

-- 
Kamaraju S Kusumanchi
http://malayamaarutham.blogspot.com/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/k1ih6e$ui$1...@ger.gmane.org

Re: e2fsck errror: Error reading block (Attempt to read block from filesystem resulted in short read)

[Federico Alberto Sayd]

On 28/08/12 10:28, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi wrote:

When I ran

$sudo e2fsck -c -c -f -v /dev/sdb7

I am getting a lot of errors such as

Error reading block 18022401 (Attempt to read block from filesystem resulted
in short read) while reading inode and block bitmaps.  Ignore errory? yes
Force rewritey? yes
Error reading block 19562497 (Attempt to read block from filesystem resulted
in short read) while reading inode and block bitmaps.  Ignore errory? yes
Force rewritey? yes
Error reading block 19824640 (Attempt to read block from filesystem resulted
in short read) while reading inode and block bitmaps.  Ignore errory? yes
Force rewritey? yes
Error reading block 19824641 (Attempt to read block from filesystem resulted
in short read) while reading inode and block bitmaps.  Ignore errory? yes
Force rewritey? yes

1) Does this mean there are badblocks on my hard drive?
2) Am I correct in choosing yes to both these questions or is there a
better way?
3) Is the drive going bad and need to be replaced?
4) What might have caused this problem and how to prevent it in the future?
5) Is the filesystem on this partition corrupted?

thanks
raju

Did you try to diagnose your hardrive with smartmontools? Smartmontools 
uses S.M.A.R.T.[1] technology included in harddrives, and displays info 
about predictable failures, time of use, etc.


Regards

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.M.A.R.T.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/503cc9ed.4090...@uncu.edu.ar

Re: Ayuda e2fsck

[Angel Claudio Alvarez]

El mar, 28-12-2010 a las 10:57 -0500, Jorge Toro escribió:
 Hola lista,
 
 necesito ayuda con un disco.
 
 lo que paso es que el disco me muestra que tiene información:
 
 [r...@informaweb xen]#  mount /dev/grp_int/prod1_infweb /mnt/vr/
 
 [r...@informaweb xen]# df -h
 FilesystemSize  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
 /dev/mapper/grp_int-raiz
34G   18G   15G  56% /
 /dev/md0   99M   44M   51M  47% /boot
 tmpfs 1.8G 0  1.8G   0% /dev/shm
 none  1.8G  144K  1.8G   1% /var/lib/xenstored
 /dev/mapper/grp_int-prod1_infweb
19G  6.5G   12G  37% /mnt/vr
 
 [r...@informaweb xen]# ls -ltr /mnt/vr/
 
 [r...@informaweb xen]# ls -ltr /mnt/vr/lost+found/ | less
 total 120564
 sr-s---rwT  1 637929343 1550826240 Feb 27  1974 #28
 -rw-r--r--  1 root  root   347 Jan 12  2000 #32077
 -rw-r--r--  1 root  root   161 Jan 12  2000 #32076
 -rw-r--r--  1 root  root17 Jul 23  2000 #32075
 -rw-r--r--  1 root  root  1615 Aug 30  2001 #32102
 -rw-r--r--  1 root  root32 Mar 28  2002 #32087
 -rw-r--r--  1 root  root  1120 Sep 14  2004 #2052259
 -rw-r--r--  1 root  root  1696 Sep 22  2004 #32101
 -rw-r--r--  1 root  root   758 Sep 23  2004 #32078
 -r--r--r--  1 root  root   679 Mar  3  2005 #2052104
 -r--r--r--  1 root  root   832 Mar  3  2005 #2052102
 -r--r--r--  1 root  root  1660 Mar  3  2005 #2052101
 -r--r--r--  1 root  root  4599 Mar  3  2005 #2052100
 -rw-r--r--  1 root  root  1512 Apr 25  2005 #32067
 -rw-r--r--  1 root  root   513 Jun 20  2005 #32070
 -rw-r--r--  1 root  root   937 Jan 31  2006 #32082
 -rw-r--r--  1 root  root59 Jan 31  2006 #32073
 -rw-r--r--  1 root  root362031 Feb 23  2006 #32086
 -rw-r--r--  1 root  root  3519 Feb 26  2006 #32099
 -rw-r--r--  1 root  root   617 Mar 21  2006 #32069
 -rw-r--r--  1 root  root28 Oct  8  2006 #32098
 -rw-r--r--  1 root  root  6108 Oct 11  2006 #32084
 -rw-r--r--  1 root  root  1437 Nov 28  2006 #32068
 -rw-r--r--  1 root  root  9863 Jan  5  2007 #103582
 -rw-r--r--  1 root  root 40814 Jan  5  2007 #103581
 
 
 
 Este disco presento estos problemas después de varios apagones y este
 servidor no estaba protegido por UPS. Le realice un e2fsck pero nada.
 
 si me pueden colaborar les estaré muy agradecido.

Ese disco es parte de un raid por software ?
no das nada de info amen de haber solicitado ayuda en mas de 5 listas

 
 -- 
 Jorge A. Toro Hoyos
 Ing. Teleinformático.
 CumbiaTIC, Dir. División de Informática COR, Esp. GNU/Linux, Esp.
 Desarrollo de Software.
 http://jolthgs.wordpress.com/
 --
 Powered By Debian.
 Developer Bullix GNU/Linux.
 --
 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
 Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
 
 iD8DBQBIWWH6q7mzdgTzI5ARAkX5AJ9TR6hL2ocLMOUDRfhts8DlVl+jpwCeNw5x
 p4+4FNUHPDUx1lU9F8WSKCA=
 =zRhQ
 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
 Este correo esta protegido bajo los términos de la Licencia
 Atribución-Compartir Obras Derivadas Igual a 2.5 Colombia de Creative
 Commons. Observé la licencia visitando este sitio
 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/co/.



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-spanish-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1293663284.3473.1.ca...@gabita2.angel-alvarez.com.ar

Ayuda e2fsck

[Jorge Toro]

Hola lista,

necesito ayuda con un disco.

lo que paso es que el disco me muestra que tiene información:

[r...@informaweb xen]#  mount /dev/grp_int/prod1_infweb /mnt/vr/

[r...@informaweb xen]# df -h
FilesystemSize  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/mapper/grp_int-raiz
   34G   18G   15G  56% /
/dev/md0   99M   44M   51M  47% /boot
tmpfs 1.8G 0  1.8G   0% /dev/shm
none  1.8G  144K  1.8G   1% /var/lib/xenstored
/dev/mapper/grp_int-prod1_infweb
   19G  6.5G   12G  37% /mnt/vr

[r...@informaweb xen]# ls -ltr /mnt/vr/

[r...@informaweb xen]# ls -ltr /mnt/vr/lost+found/ | less
total 120564
sr-s---rwT  1 637929343 1550826240 Feb 27  1974 #28
-rw-r--r--  1 root  root   347 Jan 12  2000 #32077
-rw-r--r--  1 root  root   161 Jan 12  2000 #32076
-rw-r--r--  1 root  root17 Jul 23  2000 #32075
-rw-r--r--  1 root  root  1615 Aug 30  2001 #32102
-rw-r--r--  1 root  root32 Mar 28  2002 #32087
-rw-r--r--  1 root  root  1120 Sep 14  2004 #2052259
-rw-r--r--  1 root  root  1696 Sep 22  2004 #32101
-rw-r--r--  1 root  root   758 Sep 23  2004 #32078
-r--r--r--  1 root  root   679 Mar  3  2005 #2052104
-r--r--r--  1 root  root   832 Mar  3  2005 #2052102
-r--r--r--  1 root  root  1660 Mar  3  2005 #2052101
-r--r--r--  1 root  root  4599 Mar  3  2005 #2052100
-rw-r--r--  1 root  root  1512 Apr 25  2005 #32067
-rw-r--r--  1 root  root   513 Jun 20  2005 #32070
-rw-r--r--  1 root  root   937 Jan 31  2006 #32082
-rw-r--r--  1 root  root59 Jan 31  2006 #32073
-rw-r--r--  1 root  root362031 Feb 23  2006 #32086
-rw-r--r--  1 root  root  3519 Feb 26  2006 #32099
-rw-r--r--  1 root  root   617 Mar 21  2006 #32069
-rw-r--r--  1 root  root28 Oct  8  2006 #32098
-rw-r--r--  1 root  root  6108 Oct 11  2006 #32084
-rw-r--r--  1 root  root  1437 Nov 28  2006 #32068
-rw-r--r--  1 root  root  9863 Jan  5  2007 #103582
-rw-r--r--  1 root  root 40814 Jan  5  2007 #103581



Este disco presento estos problemas después de varios apagones y este
servidor no estaba protegido por UPS. Le realice un e2fsck pero nada.

si me pueden colaborar les estaré muy agradecido.

-- 
Jorge A. Toro Hoyos
Ing. Teleinformático.
CumbiaTIC, Dir. División de Informática COR, Esp. GNU/Linux, Esp. Desarrollo
de Software.
http://jolthgs.wordpress.com/
--
Powered By Debian.
Developer Bullix GNU/Linux.
--
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBIWWH6q7mzdgTzI5ARAkX5AJ9TR6hL2ocLMOUDRfhts8DlVl+jpwCeNw5x
p4+4FNUHPDUx1lU9F8WSKCA=
=zRhQ
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
Este correo esta protegido bajo los términos de la Licencia
Atribución-Compartir Obras Derivadas Igual a 2.5 Colombia de Creative
Commons. Observé la licencia visitando este sitio
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/co/.

Re: Ayuda e2fsck

[Camaleón]

El Tue, 28 Dec 2010 10:57:51 -0500, Jorge Toro escribió:

(evita hacer cross-posting)

 necesito ayuda con un disco.
 
 lo que paso es que el disco me muestra que tiene información:

(...)

 Este disco presento estos problemas después de varios apagones y este
 servidor no estaba protegido por UPS. Le realice un e2fsck pero nada.

Puedes consultar este artículo, indican cómo recuperar (siempre que sea 
posible) los archivos que están bajo /lost+found:

***
How to recover files from lost+found after fsck in linux (How I did it in 
Ubuntu)
http://karuppuswamy.com/wordpress/2010/06/09/how-to-recover-files-from-lostfound-after-fsck-in-linux-how-i-did-it-in-ubuntu/
***

Saludos,

-- 
Camaleón


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-spanish-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2010.12.28.16.31...@gmail.com

Re: dosfslabel finds problem, e2fsck does not

[Andrei Popescu]

On Sb, 24 iul 10, 09:18:04, Arthur Marsh wrote:
 
 xhost +

This is insecure: 
http://www.fooishbar.org/blog/tech/x/xhost-plus-2010-06-29-22-42.html

Regards,
Andrei
-- 
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: dosfslabel finds problem, e2fsck does not

[Arthur Marsh]

Andrei Popescu wrote, on 24/07/10 16:29:

On Sb, 24 iul 10, 09:18:04, Arthur Marsh wrote:


xhost +


This is insecure:
http://www.fooishbar.org/blog/tech/x/xhost-plus-2010-06-29-22-42.html

Regards,
Andrei


Agreed about the  xhost +  being insecure but it took a few tries to 
work out the correct incantation:


$ xhost +SI:localuser:root

The xhost manual page doesn't really say what the SI does, nor does it 
mention localuser only local.


There are some X basics I'm unfamiliar with /-:.

Arthur.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/nbrqh7-284@ppp121-45-136-118.lns11.adl6.internode.on.net

Re: dosfslabel finds problem, e2fsck does not

[Thomas H. George]

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 11:42:39PM +0200, Florian Kulzer wrote:
 On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 15:53:36 -0400, Thomas H. George wrote:
  On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 09:13:59PM +0200, Florian Kulzer wrote:
   On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 10:25:30 -0400, Thomas H. George wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 08:28:59AM +0200, Florian Kulzer wrote:
 On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:25:42 -0400, Thomas H. George 
 wrote:
  My system, Squeeze, cannot install the latest kernel image 
  because
  dosfslabel finds a problem that prevents the installation 
  of linux-base.
  
  Trying to resolve this I used e2fsck to check each of the 
  disk
  partitions and e2fsck reported all the partitions clean.  
  However, the
  result of running dosfslabel /dev/hda1 results in the 
  following output:
  
  
  There are differences between boot sector and its backup.
  Differences: (offset:original/backup)
 
 [...]
 
 
  I have copied everything on /dev/hda1 and /dev/hda5 on to a backup drive
  and am considering a complete reformat of /dev/hda.
 
I started by using parted to delete hda5 (logical), hda2 (extended) and
then hda1 (primary). I then used commands of the form 

parted -a opt /dev/hda primary 32.3kB 1999MB

to restore the partitions.  They still did not end on cylinder
boundries.  Deleted the partitions again and tried -a min.  They still
did not end on cylinder boundries.  Deleted the partitions again and
tried -a cylinder.  They still did not end on cylinder boundries.
Deleted the partitions again, switched to fdisk and specified the
partition sizes by cylinders.  They still do not end on cylinder
boundries.  Switched to gparted and made the partition file types ext3.

Rebooted - no problems. Note: The system booting from /dev/hda.  The
script lilo wrote in the mbr has not been effected by the changes listed
above.

Ran dosfslabel /dev/hda1.  The reponse was: Logical sector size
is zero.  Repeated this for each partition on each of my hard drives
with the same result.

Disconnected every usb device attache to my system.

Ran aptitude -f install.  The result:


Reading package lists...
Building dependency tree...
Reading state information...
Reading extended state information...
Initializing package states...
Reading task descriptions...
The following partially installed packages will be configured:
  linux-base linux-image-2.6-amd64 linux-image-2.6.32-5-amd64 
No packages will be installed, upgraded, or removed.
0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 97 not upgraded.
Need to get 0B of archives. After unpacking 0B will be used.
Setting up linux-base (2.6.32-15) ...
Logical sector size (15624 bytes) is not a multiple of the physical sector size.
dosfslabel failed: 256 at /var/lib/dpkg/info/linux-base.postinst line 1059, 
STDIN line 10.
dpkg: error processing linux-base (--configure):
 subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 9
dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of linux-image-2.6.32-5-amd64:
 linux-image-2.6.32-5-amd64 depends on linux-base (= 2.6.32-15); however:
  Package linux-base is not configured yet.
dpkg: error processing linux-image-2.6.32-5-amd64 (--configure):
 dependency problems - leaving unconfigured
dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of linux-image-2.6-amd64:
 linux-image-2.6-amd64 depends on linux-image-2.6.32-5-amd64; however:
  Package linux-image-2.6.32-5-amd64 is not configured yet.
dpkg: error processing linux-image-2.6-amd64 (--configure):
 dependency problems - leaving unconfigured
Errors were encountered while processing:
 linux-base
 linux-image-2.6.32-5-amd64
 linux-image-2.6-amd64
E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)
A package failed to install.  Trying to recover:
Setting up linux-base (2.6.32-15) ...
Logical sector size (15624 bytes) is not a multiple of the physical sector size.
dosfslabel failed: 256 at /var/lib/dpkg/info/linux-base.postinst line 1059, 
STDIN line 10.
dpkg: error processing linux-base (--configure):
 subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 9
dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of linux-image-2.6.32-5-amd64:
 linux-image-2.6.32-5-amd64 depends on linux-base (= 2.6.32-15); however:
  Package linux-base is not configured yet.
dpkg: error processing linux-image-2.6.32-5-amd64 (--configure):
 dependency problems - leaving unconfigured
dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of linux-image-2.6-amd64:
 linux-image-2.6-amd64 depends on linux-image-2.6.32-5-amd64; however:
  Package linux-image-2.6.32-5-amd64 is not configured yet.
dpkg: error processing linux-image-2.6-amd64 (--configure):
 dependency problems - leaving unconfigured
Errors were encountered while processing:
 linux-base
 linux-image-2.6.32-5-amd64
 linux-image-2.6-amd64
Reading package lists...
Building dependency tree...
Reading state information

Re: dosfslabel finds problem, e2fsck does not

[Thomas H. George]

On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 07:49:58PM +0930, Arthur Marsh wrote:
 Andrei Popescu wrote, on 24/07/10 16:29:
 On Sb, 24 iul 10, 09:18:04, Arthur Marsh wrote:
 
 xhost +
 
 This is insecure:
 http://www.fooishbar.org/blog/tech/x/xhost-plus-2010-06-29-22-42.html
 
 Regards,
 Andrei
 
 Agreed about the  xhost +  being insecure but it took a few tries
 to work out the correct incantation:
 
 $ xhost +SI:localuser:root
 
 The xhost manual page doesn't really say what the SI does, nor
 does it mention localuser only local.
 
 There are some X basics I'm unfamiliar with /-:.
 
 Arthur.
 
I must be incredibly at risk for dangers I didn't even know I should
know.  To run gfdisk I just opened at terminal in X Windows, entered su
and my root password, ran the program and, when finished, entered su
tom.

Tom
 
 -- 
 To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a
 subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
 listmas...@lists.debian.org
 Archive: 
 http://lists.debian.org/nbrqh7-284@ppp121-45-136-118.lns11.adl6.internode.on.net
 
 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100724181138.gb2...@tomgeorge.info

Re: dosfslabel finds problem, e2fsck does not

[Florian Kulzer]

On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 14:04:16 -0400, Thomas H. George wrote:
  On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:25:42 -0400, Thomas H. George 
  wrote:
   My system, Squeeze, cannot install the latest kernel 
   image because
   dosfslabel finds a problem that prevents the installation 
   of linux-base.
   
   Trying to resolve this I used e2fsck to check each of the 
   disk
   partitions and e2fsck reported all the partitions clean.  
   However, the
   result of running dosfslabel /dev/hda1 results in the 
   following output:
   
   
   There are differences between boot sector and its backup.
   Differences: (offset:original/backup)

[...]

 I started by using parted to delete hda5 (logical), hda2 (extended) and
 then hda1 (primary). I then used commands of the form 
 
 parted -a opt /dev/hda primary 32.3kB 1999MB
 
 to restore the partitions.  They still did not end on cylinder
 boundries.  Deleted the partitions again and tried -a min.  They still
 did not end on cylinder boundries.  Deleted the partitions again and
 tried -a cylinder.  They still did not end on cylinder boundries.
 Deleted the partitions again, switched to fdisk and specified the
 partition sizes by cylinders.  They still do not end on cylinder
 boundries.  Switched to gparted and made the partition file types ext3.
 
 Rebooted - no problems. Note: The system booting from /dev/hda.  The
 script lilo wrote in the mbr has not been effected by the changes listed
 above.
 
 Ran dosfslabel /dev/hda1.  The reponse was: Logical sector size
 is zero.  Repeated this for each partition on each of my hard drives
 with the same result.

I see the same for my partitions, except for /dev/hda1 where I get Seek
to 60011609600:Invalid argument. It should not really matter, in all
all cases an error is returned, so dosfslabel fails. This does not
surprise me for ext3 partitions; I still think it is a mistake that the
postinst script of linux-base runs dosfslabel on the partition.

 Disconnected every usb device attache to my system.
 
 Ran aptitude -f install.  The result:

[...]

 Setting up linux-base (2.6.32-15) ...
 Logical sector size (15624 bytes) is not a multiple of the physical sector 
 size.
 dosfslabel failed: 256 at /var/lib/dpkg/info/linux-base.postinst line 1059, 
 STDIN line 10.
 dpkg: error processing linux-base (--configure):

[...]

Erase all references to vfat filesystems (see Virgo Pärna's suggestion)
and to removable devices from your /etc/fstab; make sure that mount
only lists your built-in hard drives. If the installation of linux-base
still fails after that then it is probably time to file a bug against
the package (after carefully checking out the existing reports).

-- 
Regards,|
  Florian   |


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100724223955.gb8...@isar.localhost

Re: dosfslabel finds problem, e2fsck does not

[Arthur Marsh]

Thomas H. George wrote, on 23/07/10 01:00:

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 11:42:39PM +0200, Florian Kulzer wrote:

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 15:53:36 -0400, Thomas H. George wrote:

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 09:13:59PM +0200, Florian Kulzer wrote:

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 10:25:30 -0400, Thomas H. George wrote:

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 08:28:59AM +0200, Florian Kulzer wrote:

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:25:42 -0400, Thomas H. George wrote:

My system, Squeeze, cannot install the latest kernel image because
dosfslabel finds a problem that prevents the installation of linux-base.

Trying to resolve this I used e2fsck to check each of the disk
partitions and e2fsck reported all the partitions clean.  However, the
result of running dosfslabel /dev/hda1 results in the following output:


There are differences between boot sector and its backup.
Differences: (offset:original/backup)


[...]


Installation of linux-base still fails as described previously and
dosfslabel /dev/hda1 still gives the error message posted prevously but
e2fsck /dev/hda1 says it is clean.


So we still have to find out why the postinst script runs dosfslabel on
an ext3 partition. Looking at the script, it seems to assemble a list of
filesystems and their types by analyzing /etc/fstab. I would therefore
like to see your output for:

   grep -E 'hda1|2428f3c0|vfat|msdos|ntfs' /etc/fstab


The output is:

/dev/hda1   /temp   ext2rw,user,auto0   2
/dev/sdc/media/fuze vfatrw,user,noauto  0   0
/dev/sg1/usbdrive   vfatrw,user,noauto  0   0
/dev/sda/media/usb1 vfatrw,user,noauto  0   0


Nothing here to make the postinst script identify /dev/hda1 as a vfat
partition. (By the way, why do you have etx2 instead of ext3 as the
type?)


I have copied everything on /dev/hda1 and /dev/hda5 on to a backup drive
and am considering a complete reformat of /dev/hda.


I would think that it should be enough to wipe out and reconstruct the
one problematic partition.

You can try one more thing before that. Here is a list of all the
configuration files that the postinst script seems to take into account
when searching for known block devices (you can run the awk-cut
combination yourself to make sure that your version of linux-base uses
the same files):

$ awk '/my @config_files/,/^$/{if(/path =.*\//) print $3}' 
/var/lib/dpkg/info/linux-base.postinst | cut -d\' -f2
/etc/fstab
/boot/grub/menu.lst
/etc/default/grub
/etc/lilo.conf
/etc/silo.conf
/etc/quik.conf
/etc/yaboot.conf
/etc/elilo.conf
/etc/default/extlinux
/etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-cd.rules
/etc/initramfs-tools/conf.d/resume
/etc/uswsusp.conf
/etc/crypttab
/etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf
/etc/hdparm.conf

You can check if one of these files is present on your system and
mentions /dev/hda1 as type vfat. If that should turn out to be the case
then it might be enough to remove that reference to solve your problem.


Did all this and found nothing.

Then, since I thought the problem might be buried in the mbr, I used
lilo to write a mbr for my system on /dev/hda, changed BIOS to boot from
/dev/hda and rebooted.  The boot paused in maintenance mode reporting
problems with /dev/hda1.  I ran e2fsck /dev/hda1 which made a number of
corrections.  Following this the system booted normally from the mbr on
/dev/hda.  The problem is now reduced to this, the output of dosfslabel
is now just:

Logical sector size (65280 bytes) is not a multiple of the physical sector size.

What to do?  parted has an option to set alignment for newly created
partitions but can create only ext2 partitions.  gdisk has options for
creating all types of partitions but the man page says nothing about
alignment.

Recommendations?


Have you tried:

xhost +
su
gparted

Remember all the usual precautions about backing up your data before 
doing anything potentially destructive with gparted.


On a related subject, I kept getting fsck.vfat error messages with a USB 
stick because I had been running an fsck on the entire device (e.g. 
/dev/sdd) rather than on just the filesystem (e.g. /dev/sdd1).


Arthur.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/pamph7-7v4@ppp121-45-136-118.lns11.adl6.internode.on.net

Re: dosfslabel finds problem, e2fsck does not

[Virgo Pärna]

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 23:42:39 +0200, Florian Kulzer 
florian.kulzer+deb...@icfo.es wrote:
 On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 15:53:36 -0400, Thomas H. George wrote:
 
 /dev/hda1/temp   ext2rw,user,auto0   2
 /dev/sdc /media/fuze vfatrw,user,noauto  0   0
 /dev/sg1 /usbdrive   vfatrw,user,noauto  0   0
 /dev/sda /media/usb1 vfatrw,user,noauto  0   0

 Nothing here to make the postinst script identify /dev/hda1 as a vfat
 partition. (By the way, why do you have etx2 instead of ext3 as the
 type?)


Could it be something todo with use of libata drivers in newer kernels?.
That installation script tries to be ready for hda - sda change. What happens,
if /dev/sda line is commented out in fstab? Or even also /dev/sdc line. I know, 
it is somewhat stupid idea, but maybe it's worth of trying.

-- 
Virgo Pärna 
virgo.pa...@mail.ee


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/slrni4g5df.46l.virgo.pa...@dragon.gaiasoft.ee

Re: dosfslabel finds problem, e2fsck does not

[Thomas H. George]

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 11:42:39PM +0200, Florian Kulzer wrote:
 On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 15:53:36 -0400, Thomas H. George wrote:
  On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 09:13:59PM +0200, Florian Kulzer wrote:
   On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 10:25:30 -0400, Thomas H. George wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 08:28:59AM +0200, Florian Kulzer wrote:
 On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:25:42 -0400, Thomas H. George 
 wrote:
  My system, Squeeze, cannot install the latest kernel image 
  because
  dosfslabel finds a problem that prevents the installation 
  of linux-base.
  
  Trying to resolve this I used e2fsck to check each of the 
  disk
  partitions and e2fsck reported all the partitions clean.  
  However, the
  result of running dosfslabel /dev/hda1 results in the 
  following output:
  
  
  There are differences between boot sector and its backup.
  Differences: (offset:original/backup)
 
 [...]
 
Installation of linux-base still fails as described previously and
dosfslabel /dev/hda1 still gives the error message posted prevously but
e2fsck /dev/hda1 says it is clean.
   
   So we still have to find out why the postinst script runs dosfslabel on
   an ext3 partition. Looking at the script, it seems to assemble a list of
   filesystems and their types by analyzing /etc/fstab. I would therefore
   like to see your output for:
   
 grep -E 'hda1|2428f3c0|vfat|msdos|ntfs' /etc/fstab
   
  The output is:
  
  /dev/hda1   /temp   ext2rw,user,auto0   2
  /dev/sdc/media/fuze vfatrw,user,noauto  0   0
  /dev/sg1/usbdrive   vfatrw,user,noauto  0   0
  /dev/sda/media/usb1 vfatrw,user,noauto  0   0
 
 Nothing here to make the postinst script identify /dev/hda1 as a vfat
 partition. (By the way, why do you have etx2 instead of ext3 as the
 type?)
 
  I have copied everything on /dev/hda1 and /dev/hda5 on to a backup drive
  and am considering a complete reformat of /dev/hda.
 
 I would think that it should be enough to wipe out and reconstruct the
 one problematic partition.
 
 You can try one more thing before that. Here is a list of all the
 configuration files that the postinst script seems to take into account
 when searching for known block devices (you can run the awk-cut
 combination yourself to make sure that your version of linux-base uses
 the same files):
 
 $ awk '/my @config_files/,/^$/{if(/path =.*\//) print $3}' 
 /var/lib/dpkg/info/linux-base.postinst | cut -d\' -f2
 /etc/fstab
 /boot/grub/menu.lst
 /etc/default/grub
 /etc/lilo.conf
 /etc/silo.conf
 /etc/quik.conf
 /etc/yaboot.conf
 /etc/elilo.conf
 /etc/default/extlinux
 /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-cd.rules
 /etc/initramfs-tools/conf.d/resume
 /etc/uswsusp.conf
 /etc/crypttab
 /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf
 /etc/hdparm.conf
 
 You can check if one of these files is present on your system and
 mentions /dev/hda1 as type vfat. If that should turn out to be the case
 then it might be enough to remove that reference to solve your problem.

Did all this and found nothing.

Then, since I thought the problem might be buried in the mbr, I used
lilo to write a mbr for my system on /dev/hda, changed BIOS to boot from
/dev/hda and rebooted.  The boot paused in maintenance mode reporting
problems with /dev/hda1.  I ran e2fsck /dev/hda1 which made a number of
corrections.  Following this the system booted normally from the mbr on
/dev/hda.  The problem is now reduced to this, the output of dosfslabel
is now just:

Logical sector size (65280 bytes) is not a multiple of the physical sector size.

What to do?  parted has an option to set alignment for newly created
partitions but can create only ext2 partitions.  gdisk has options for
creating all types of partitions but the man page says nothing about
alignment. 

Recommendations?

Tom
 
 -- 
 Regards,|
   Florian   |
 
 
 -- 
 To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
 with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
 Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100721214239.ga5...@isar.localhost
 
 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100722153043.ga2...@tomgeorge.info

Re: dosfslabel finds problem, e2fsck does not

[Florian Kulzer]

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 20:09:27 -0400, Thomas H. George wrote:
 On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 10:43:46PM +0200, Florian Kulzer wrote:
  On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 15:58:59 -0400, Thomas H. George wrote:
   On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 07:23:31PM +0200, Florian Kulzer wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:25:42 -0400, Thomas H. George wrote:
 My system, Squeeze, cannot install the latest kernel image because
 dosfslabel finds a problem that prevents the installation of 
 linux-base.
 
 Trying to resolve this I used e2fsck to check each of the disk
 partitions and e2fsck reported all the partitions clean.  However, the
 result of running dosfslabel /dev/hda1 results in the following 
 output:
 
 
 There are differences between boot sector and its backup.
 Differences: (offset:original/backup)
  
  [...]
  
   Not automatically fixing this.
 NO NAME
 
 This hard drive used to have windoze installed and could be booted.  
 The
 windoze partition was reformated to be an ext2 partition.
  
  [...]
  
The first thing I would do is to check for signatures of other
filesystems that were left behind on /dev/hda1:

  wipefs /dev/hda1
  
  [...]
  
   No luck.  wipefs removed two bits
  
  That is better in any case; such stale additional signatures cause
  problems for blkid.

Note: I misunderstood you here, assuming that you had actively removed
the signatures yourself after checking that it made sense to do so.

[...]

  I would like to see your output of
  
wipefs /dev/hda1
 
 No output.

That is not good; it should show at least the signature of the ext3
filesystem.

# wipefs /dev/hda1
offset   type

0x438ext3   [filesystem]
 LABEL: root
 UUID:  51e39ea1-999d-4567-8e50-11ad53029e9c

 There was output

I need to know exactly what this output was.

  before I ran wipe /dev/hda1 the first time.
 It said it was removing two bits.

It should have done anything when run without options, unless you have a
different version of until-linux than the current one for Squeeze. There
was a reason for my explicitly asking you to read the manpage to make
sure you understand what you are doing. I thought you understood the
inherent risk of operations on the filesystem structure and that you
would make an informed decision if that risk is worthwhile. I cannot
make any more suggestions to you if you unquestioningly use the tools
that I propose without regarding the caveats that I point out.

Does blkid /dev/hda1 still return the correct label, UUID and type?

  (to verify that the ext3 signature has the normal offset) and also the
  output of
  
fdisk -l /dev/hda

[...]

 Disk /dev/hda: 30 GB, 30754321920 bytes
 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 3739 cylinders
 Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
 
Device Boot  Start End  Blocks   Id  System 
 /dev/hda1   1 243 1951866   83  Linux
 /dev/hda2 2443739280735875  Extended
 /dev/hda5 244373928073587   83  Linux

That looks OK to me.

-- 
Regards,|
  Florian   |


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100721062859.ga4...@isar.localhost

Re: dosfslabel finds problem, e2fsck does not

[Thomas H. George]

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 08:28:59AM +0200, Florian Kulzer wrote:
 On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 20:09:27 -0400, Thomas H. George wrote:
  On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 10:43:46PM +0200, Florian Kulzer wrote:
   On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 15:58:59 -0400, Thomas H. George wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 07:23:31PM +0200, Florian Kulzer wrote:
 On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:25:42 -0400, Thomas H. George wrote:
  My system, Squeeze, cannot install the latest kernel image because
  dosfslabel finds a problem that prevents the installation of 
  linux-base.
  
  Trying to resolve this I used e2fsck to check each of the disk
  partitions and e2fsck reported all the partitions clean.  However, 
  the
  result of running dosfslabel /dev/hda1 results in the following 
  output:
  
  
  There are differences between boot sector and its backup.
  Differences: (offset:original/backup)
   
   [...]
   
Not automatically fixing this.
  NO NAME
  
  This hard drive used to have windoze installed and could be booted. 
   The
  windoze partition was reformated to be an ext2 partition.
   
   [...]
   
 The first thing I would do is to check for signatures of other
 filesystems that were left behind on /dev/hda1:
 
   wipefs /dev/hda1
   
   [...]
   
No luck.  wipefs removed two bits
   
   That is better in any case; such stale additional signatures cause
   problems for blkid.
 
 Note: I misunderstood you here, assuming that you had actively removed
 the signatures yourself after checking that it made sense to do so.
 
 [...]
 
   I would like to see your output of
   
 wipefs /dev/hda1
  
  No output.
 
 That is not good; it should show at least the signature of the ext3
 filesystem.
 
 # wipefs /dev/hda1
 offset   type
 
 0x438ext3   [filesystem]
  LABEL: root
  UUID:  51e39ea1-999d-4567-8e50-11ad53029e9c
 
  There was output
 
 I need to know exactly what this output was.
 
   before I ran wipe /dev/hda1 the first time.
  It said it was removing two bits.
 
 It should have done anything when run without options, unless you have a
 different version of until-linux than the current one for Squeeze. There
 was a reason for my explicitly asking you to read the manpage to make
 sure you understand what you are doing. I thought you understood the
 inherent risk of operations on the filesystem structure and that you
 would make an informed decision if that risk is worthwhile. I cannot
 make any more suggestions to you if you unquestioningly use the tools
 that I propose without regarding the caveats that I point out.

I did read the man page first.  It said wipefs -n /dev/hda1 would do
everything except the write call.  I ran it that way and the output was
much like the example you gave above with a message that two bits would
be removed.  I assumed the two bits were the leftover signature and ran
wipefs again without the -n option.  

Since then the computer was shutdown overnight.  Reboot this morning
stopped in maintenance mode reporting a bad superblock in /dev/hda1.  I
ran e2fsck -b  /dev/hda1 where  was the given alternate
superblock.  The systen then rebooted normally.

Now the output of wipefs -n /dev/hda1 is:


offset   type

0x438ext2   [filesystem]
 UUID:  2428f3c0-3098-448c-9484-587eb9f86e37

 
 Does blkid /dev/hda1 still return the correct label, UUID and type?
Yes

/dev/hda1: UUID=2428f3c0-3098-448c-9484-587eb9f86e37 TYPE=ext2 

Installation of linux-base still fails as described previously and
dosfslabel /dev/hda1 still gives the error message posted prevously but
e2fsck /dev/hda1 says it is clean.

Tom
 
   (to verify that the ext3 signature has the normal offset) and also the
   output of
   
 fdisk -l /dev/hda
 
 [...]
 
  Disk /dev/hda: 30 GB, 30754321920 bytes
  255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 3739 cylinders
  Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
  
 Device Boot  Start End  Blocks   Id  System 
  /dev/hda1   1 243 1951866   83  Linux
  /dev/hda2 2443739280735875  Extended
  /dev/hda5 244373928073587   83  Linux
 
 That looks OK to me.
 
 -- 
 Regards,|
   Florian   |
 
 
 -- 
 To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
 with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
 Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100721062859.ga4...@isar.localhost
 
 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100721142530.ga4...@tomgeorge.info

Re: dosfslabel finds problem, e2fsck does not

[Florian Kulzer]

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 10:25:30 -0400, Thomas H. George wrote:
 On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 08:28:59AM +0200, Florian Kulzer wrote:
  On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:25:42 -0400, Thomas H. George wrote:
   My system, Squeeze, cannot install the latest kernel image because
   dosfslabel finds a problem that prevents the installation of 
   linux-base.
   
   Trying to resolve this I used e2fsck to check each of the disk
   partitions and e2fsck reported all the partitions clean.  
   However, the
   result of running dosfslabel /dev/hda1 results in the following 
   output:
   
   
   There are differences between boot sector and its backup.
   Differences: (offset:original/backup)

[...]

 I did read the man page first.  It said wipefs -n /dev/hda1 would do
 everything except the write call.  I ran it that way and the output was
 much like the example you gave above with a message that two bits would
 be removed.  I assumed the two bits were the leftover signature and ran
 wipefs again without the -n option.  
 
 Since then the computer was shutdown overnight.  Reboot this morning
 stopped in maintenance mode reporting a bad superblock in /dev/hda1.  I
 ran e2fsck -b  /dev/hda1 where  was the given alternate
 superblock.  The systen then rebooted normally.
 
 Now the output of wipefs -n /dev/hda1 is:
 
 
 offset   type
 
 0x438ext2   [filesystem]
  UUID:  2428f3c0-3098-448c-9484-587eb9f86e37
 
  
  Does blkid /dev/hda1 still return the correct label, UUID and type?
 Yes
 
 /dev/hda1: UUID=2428f3c0-3098-448c-9484-587eb9f86e37 TYPE=ext2 

OK, that is all fine. You did not give the details about how you used
wipefs in your previous message, so I was getting worried that I might
have inadvertently caused you to wipe out the ext3 signature.
 
 Installation of linux-base still fails as described previously and
 dosfslabel /dev/hda1 still gives the error message posted prevously but
 e2fsck /dev/hda1 says it is clean.

So we still have to find out why the postinst script runs dosfslabel on
an ext3 partition. Looking at the script, it seems to assemble a list of
filesystems and their types by analyzing /etc/fstab. I would therefore
like to see your output for:

  grep -E 'hda1|2428f3c0|vfat|msdos|ntfs' /etc/fstab

-- 
Regards,|
  Florian   |


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100721191359.ga4...@isar.localhost

Re: dosfslabel finds problem, e2fsck does not

[Thomas H. George]

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 09:13:59PM +0200, Florian Kulzer wrote:
 On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 10:25:30 -0400, Thomas H. George wrote:
  On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 08:28:59AM +0200, Florian Kulzer wrote:
   On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:25:42 -0400, Thomas H. George wrote:
My system, Squeeze, cannot install the latest kernel image 
because
dosfslabel finds a problem that prevents the installation of 
linux-base.

Trying to resolve this I used e2fsck to check each of the disk
partitions and e2fsck reported all the partitions clean.  
However, the
result of running dosfslabel /dev/hda1 results in the following 
output:


There are differences between boot sector and its backup.
Differences: (offset:original/backup)
 
 [...]
 
  I did read the man page first.  It said wipefs -n /dev/hda1 would do
  everything except the write call.  I ran it that way and the output was
  much like the example you gave above with a message that two bits would
  be removed.  I assumed the two bits were the leftover signature and ran
  wipefs again without the -n option.  
  
  Since then the computer was shutdown overnight.  Reboot this morning
  stopped in maintenance mode reporting a bad superblock in /dev/hda1.  I
  ran e2fsck -b  /dev/hda1 where  was the given alternate
  superblock.  The systen then rebooted normally.
  
  Now the output of wipefs -n /dev/hda1 is:
  
  
  offset   type
  
  0x438ext2   [filesystem]
   UUID:  2428f3c0-3098-448c-9484-587eb9f86e37
  
   
   Does blkid /dev/hda1 still return the correct label, UUID and type?
  Yes
  
  /dev/hda1: UUID=2428f3c0-3098-448c-9484-587eb9f86e37 TYPE=ext2 
 
 OK, that is all fine. You did not give the details about how you used
 wipefs in your previous message, so I was getting worried that I might
 have inadvertently caused you to wipe out the ext3 signature.
  
  Installation of linux-base still fails as described previously and
  dosfslabel /dev/hda1 still gives the error message posted prevously but
  e2fsck /dev/hda1 says it is clean.
 
 So we still have to find out why the postinst script runs dosfslabel on
 an ext3 partition. Looking at the script, it seems to assemble a list of
 filesystems and their types by analyzing /etc/fstab. I would therefore
 like to see your output for:
 
   grep -E 'hda1|2428f3c0|vfat|msdos|ntfs' /etc/fstab
 
The output is:


/dev/hda1   /temp   ext2rw,user,auto0   2
/dev/sdc/media/fuze vfatrw,user,noauto  0   0
/dev/sg1/usbdrive   vfatrw,user,noauto  0   0
/dev/sda/media/usb1 vfatrw,user,noauto  0   0

I have copied everything on /dev/hda1 and /dev/hda5 on to a backup drive
and am considering a complete reformat of /dev/hda.

Tom
 -- 
 Regards,|
   Florian   |
 
 
 -- 
 To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
 with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
 Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100721191359.ga4...@isar.localhost
 
 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100721195336.ga7...@tomgeorge.info

Re: dosfslabel finds problem, e2fsck does not

[Florian Kulzer]

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 15:53:36 -0400, Thomas H. George wrote:
 On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 09:13:59PM +0200, Florian Kulzer wrote:
  On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 10:25:30 -0400, Thomas H. George wrote:
   On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 08:28:59AM +0200, Florian Kulzer wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:25:42 -0400, Thomas H. George wrote:
 My system, Squeeze, cannot install the latest kernel image 
 because
 dosfslabel finds a problem that prevents the installation of 
 linux-base.
 
 Trying to resolve this I used e2fsck to check each of the disk
 partitions and e2fsck reported all the partitions clean.  
 However, the
 result of running dosfslabel /dev/hda1 results in the 
 following output:
 
 
 There are differences between boot sector and its backup.
 Differences: (offset:original/backup)

[...]

   Installation of linux-base still fails as described previously and
   dosfslabel /dev/hda1 still gives the error message posted prevously but
   e2fsck /dev/hda1 says it is clean.
  
  So we still have to find out why the postinst script runs dosfslabel on
  an ext3 partition. Looking at the script, it seems to assemble a list of
  filesystems and their types by analyzing /etc/fstab. I would therefore
  like to see your output for:
  
grep -E 'hda1|2428f3c0|vfat|msdos|ntfs' /etc/fstab
  
 The output is:
 
 /dev/hda1 /temp   ext2rw,user,auto0   2
 /dev/sdc  /media/fuze vfatrw,user,noauto  0   0
 /dev/sg1  /usbdrive   vfatrw,user,noauto  0   0
 /dev/sda  /media/usb1 vfatrw,user,noauto  0   0

Nothing here to make the postinst script identify /dev/hda1 as a vfat
partition. (By the way, why do you have etx2 instead of ext3 as the
type?)

 I have copied everything on /dev/hda1 and /dev/hda5 on to a backup drive
 and am considering a complete reformat of /dev/hda.

I would think that it should be enough to wipe out and reconstruct the
one problematic partition.

You can try one more thing before that. Here is a list of all the
configuration files that the postinst script seems to take into account
when searching for known block devices (you can run the awk-cut
combination yourself to make sure that your version of linux-base uses
the same files):

$ awk '/my @config_files/,/^$/{if(/path =.*\//) print $3}' 
/var/lib/dpkg/info/linux-base.postinst | cut -d\' -f2
/etc/fstab
/boot/grub/menu.lst
/etc/default/grub
/etc/lilo.conf
/etc/silo.conf
/etc/quik.conf
/etc/yaboot.conf
/etc/elilo.conf
/etc/default/extlinux
/etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-cd.rules
/etc/initramfs-tools/conf.d/resume
/etc/uswsusp.conf
/etc/crypttab
/etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf
/etc/hdparm.conf

You can check if one of these files is present on your system and
mentions /dev/hda1 as type vfat. If that should turn out to be the case
then it might be enough to remove that reference to solve your problem.

-- 
Regards,|
  Florian   |


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100721214239.ga5...@isar.localhost

dosfslabel finds problem, e2fsck does not

[Thomas H. George]

My system, Squeeze, cannot install the latest kernel image because
dosfslabel finds a problem that prevents the installation of linux-base.

Trying to resolve this I used e2fsck to check each of the disk
partitions and e2fsck reported all the partitions clean.  However, the
result of running dosfslabel /dev/hda1 results in the following output:


There are differences between boot sector and its backup.
Differences: (offset:original/backup)
  0:eb/01, 1:58/00, 2:90/04, 4:53/02, 5:57/00, 6:49/04, 7:4e/00, 8:34/0c
  , 9:2e/00, 10:31/04, 12:02/ff, 13:08/1d, 14:20/f8, 15:00/0f, 16:02/00
  .
  .
  .
  , 493:00/1d, 494:00/f8, 495:00/0f
  Not automatically fixing this.
NO NAME

This hard drive used to have windoze installed and could be booted.  The
windoze partition was reformated to be an ext2 partition.

Could it be that there is still a windoze mbr before the /dev/hda1
partition and fsdoslabel sees this but e2fsck does not?

If so, what can I do about it?

Tom


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100720152542.ga5...@tomgeorge.info

Re: dosfslabel finds problem, e2fsck does not

[Florian Kulzer]

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:25:42 -0400, Thomas H. George wrote:
 My system, Squeeze, cannot install the latest kernel image because
 dosfslabel finds a problem that prevents the installation of linux-base.
 
 Trying to resolve this I used e2fsck to check each of the disk
 partitions and e2fsck reported all the partitions clean.  However, the
 result of running dosfslabel /dev/hda1 results in the following output:
 
 
 There are differences between boot sector and its backup.
 Differences: (offset:original/backup)
   0:eb/01, 1:58/00, 2:90/04, 4:53/02, 5:57/00, 6:49/04, 7:4e/00, 8:34/0c
   , 9:2e/00, 10:31/04, 12:02/ff, 13:08/1d, 14:20/f8, 15:00/0f, 16:02/00
   .
   .
   .
   , 493:00/1d, 494:00/f8, 495:00/0f
   Not automatically fixing this.
 NO NAME
 
 This hard drive used to have windoze installed and could be booted.  The
 windoze partition was reformated to be an ext2 partition.
 
 Could it be that there is still a windoze mbr before the /dev/hda1
 partition and fsdoslabel sees this but e2fsck does not?
 
 If so, what can I do about it?

The first thing I would do is to check for signatures of other
filesystems that were left behind on /dev/hda1:

  wipefs /dev/hda1

This command has to be run as root or as a user who is member of the
disk group. Without options it will just list all the filesystem
signatures that it can find; as its name indicates, it can then be used
to remove the spurious signatures. (As always, see the manpage and be
careful what you type; wipefs is part of util-linux.)

I recently had the automatic conversion to UUIDs fail on a system
because the root partition had residual signatures of dos filesystems,
which causes blkid to fail for that partition, meaning it cannot be
found by UUID or LABEL during boot.

In your case I would guess that a residual dos signature causes the
postinst to run dosfslabel, which fails because there is now an ext3 on
the partition.

-- 
Regards,|
  Florian   |


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100720172331.ga3...@isar.localhost

Re: dosfslabel finds problem, e2fsck does not

[Thomas H. George]

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 07:23:31PM +0200, Florian Kulzer wrote:
 On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:25:42 -0400, Thomas H. George wrote:
  My system, Squeeze, cannot install the latest kernel image because
  dosfslabel finds a problem that prevents the installation of linux-base.
  
  Trying to resolve this I used e2fsck to check each of the disk
  partitions and e2fsck reported all the partitions clean.  However, the
  result of running dosfslabel /dev/hda1 results in the following output:
  
  
  There are differences between boot sector and its backup.
  Differences: (offset:original/backup)
0:eb/01, 1:58/00, 2:90/04, 4:53/02, 5:57/00, 6:49/04, 7:4e/00, 8:34/0c
, 9:2e/00, 10:31/04, 12:02/ff, 13:08/1d, 14:20/f8, 15:00/0f, 16:02/00
.
.
.
, 493:00/1d, 494:00/f8, 495:00/0f
Not automatically fixing this.
  NO NAME
  
  This hard drive used to have windoze installed and could be booted.  The
  windoze partition was reformated to be an ext2 partition.
  
  Could it be that there is still a windoze mbr before the /dev/hda1
  partition and fsdoslabel sees this but e2fsck does not?
  
  If so, what can I do about it?
 
 The first thing I would do is to check for signatures of other
 filesystems that were left behind on /dev/hda1:
 
   wipefs /dev/hda1
 
 This command has to be run as root or as a user who is member of the
 disk group. Without options it will just list all the filesystem
 signatures that it can find; as its name indicates, it can then be used
 to remove the spurious signatures. (As always, see the manpage and be
 careful what you type; wipefs is part of util-linux.)
 
 I recently had the automatic conversion to UUIDs fail on a system
 because the root partition had residual signatures of dos filesystems,
 which causes blkid to fail for that partition, meaning it cannot be
 found by UUID or LABEL during boot.
 
 In your case I would guess that a residual dos signature causes the
 postinst to run dosfslabel, which fails because there is now an ext3 on
 the partition.
 
 -- 
 Regards,|
   Florian   |
 
No luck.  wipefs removed two bits but the output of dosfstab was
unchanged.  I tried aptitude -f install and the installation of
linux-base still failed as shown below:


Reading package lists...
Building dependency tree...
Reading state information...
Reading extended state information...
Initializing package states...
Reading task descriptions...
The following partially installed packages will be configured:
  linux-base linux-image-2.6-amd64 linux-image-2.6.32-5-amd64 
No packages will be installed, upgraded, or removed.
0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 50 not upgraded.
Need to get 0B of archives. After unpacking 0B will be used.
Setting up linux-base (2.6.32-15) ...
Logical sector size (15624 bytes) is not a multiple of the physical sector size.
dosfslabel failed: 256 at /var/lib/dpkg/info/linux-base.postinst line 1059, 
STDIN line 10.
dpkg: error processing linux-base (--configure):
 subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 9
dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of linux-image-2.6.32-5-amd64:
 linux-image-2.6.32-5-amd64 depends on linux-base (= 2.6.32-15); however:
  Package linux-base is not configured yet.
dpkg: error processing linux-image-2.6.32-5-amd64 (--configure):
 dependency problems - leaving unconfigured
dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of linux-image-2.6-amd64:
 linux-image-2.6-amd64 depends on linux-image-2.6.32-5-amd64; however:
  Package linux-image-2.6.32-5-amd64 is not configured yet.
dpkg: error processing linux-image-2.6-amd64 (--configure):
 dependency problems - leaving unconfigured
Errors were encountered while processing:
 linux-base
 linux-image-2.6.32-5-amd64
 linux-image-2.6-amd64
Setting up linux-base (2.6.32-15) ...
Reading package lists...
Building dependency tree...
Reading state information...
Reading extended state information...
Initializing package states...
Reading task descriptions...


I assume the problem is with /dev/hda1 as the output of dosfslabel run
on any other partition is: Logical sector size is zero.

Tom


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100720195859.ga6...@tomgeorge.info

Re: dosfslabel finds problem, e2fsck does not

[Florian Kulzer]

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 15:58:59 -0400, Thomas H. George wrote:
 On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 07:23:31PM +0200, Florian Kulzer wrote:
  On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:25:42 -0400, Thomas H. George wrote:
   My system, Squeeze, cannot install the latest kernel image because
   dosfslabel finds a problem that prevents the installation of linux-base.
   
   Trying to resolve this I used e2fsck to check each of the disk
   partitions and e2fsck reported all the partitions clean.  However, the
   result of running dosfslabel /dev/hda1 results in the following output:
   
   
   There are differences between boot sector and its backup.
   Differences: (offset:original/backup)

[...]

 Not automatically fixing this.
   NO NAME
   
   This hard drive used to have windoze installed and could be booted.  The
   windoze partition was reformated to be an ext2 partition.

[...]

  The first thing I would do is to check for signatures of other
  filesystems that were left behind on /dev/hda1:
  
wipefs /dev/hda1

[...]

 No luck.  wipefs removed two bits

That is better in any case; such stale additional signatures cause
problems for blkid.

   but the output of dosfstab was
 unchanged.  I tried aptitude -f install and the installation of
 linux-base still failed as shown below:

[...]

 The following partially installed packages will be configured:
   linux-base linux-image-2.6-amd64 linux-image-2.6.32-5-amd64 
 No packages will be installed, upgraded, or removed.
 0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 50 not upgraded.
 Need to get 0B of archives. After unpacking 0B will be used.
 Setting up linux-base (2.6.32-15) ...
 Logical sector size (15624 bytes) is not a multiple of the physical sector 
 size.
 dosfslabel failed: 256 at /var/lib/dpkg/info/linux-base.postinst line 1059, 
 STDIN line 10.
 dpkg: error processing linux-base (--configure):
  subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 9

[...]

 I assume the problem is with /dev/hda1 as the output of dosfslabel run
 on any other partition is: Logical sector size is zero.

OK, the normal way to fix the differences between boot sector and its
backup problem on a vfat filesystem is:

  fsck.vfat -ar /dev/hda1

(The filesystem should be unmounted for this procedure.)

However, I have never had to use it on an ext3 partition and I have no
idea if is safe, therefore I am hesitant to recommend it to you.
(Fsck.vfat will overwrite the backup of the boot sector with its current
content, making the two identical again.)  

I would like to see your output of

  wipefs /dev/hda1

(to verify that the ext3 signature has the normal offset) and also the
output of

  fdisk -l /dev/hda

to check if the partition type is correct.

-- 
Regards,|
  Florian   |


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100720204346.ga10...@isar.localhost

Re: dosfslabel finds problem, e2fsck does not

[Thomas H. George]

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 10:43:46PM +0200, Florian Kulzer wrote:
 On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 15:58:59 -0400, Thomas H. George wrote:
  On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 07:23:31PM +0200, Florian Kulzer wrote:
   On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:25:42 -0400, Thomas H. George wrote:
My system, Squeeze, cannot install the latest kernel image because
dosfslabel finds a problem that prevents the installation of linux-base.

Trying to resolve this I used e2fsck to check each of the disk
partitions and e2fsck reported all the partitions clean.  However, the
result of running dosfslabel /dev/hda1 results in the following output:


There are differences between boot sector and its backup.
Differences: (offset:original/backup)
 
 [...]
 
  Not automatically fixing this.
NO NAME

This hard drive used to have windoze installed and could be booted.  The
windoze partition was reformated to be an ext2 partition.
 
 [...]
 
   The first thing I would do is to check for signatures of other
   filesystems that were left behind on /dev/hda1:
   
 wipefs /dev/hda1
 
 [...]
 
  No luck.  wipefs removed two bits
 
 That is better in any case; such stale additional signatures cause
 problems for blkid.
 
but the output of dosfstab was
  unchanged.  I tried aptitude -f install and the installation of
  linux-base still failed as shown below:
 
 [...]
 
  The following partially installed packages will be configured:
linux-base linux-image-2.6-amd64 linux-image-2.6.32-5-amd64 
  No packages will be installed, upgraded, or removed.
  0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 50 not upgraded.
  Need to get 0B of archives. After unpacking 0B will be used.
  Setting up linux-base (2.6.32-15) ...
  Logical sector size (15624 bytes) is not a multiple of the physical sector 
  size.
  dosfslabel failed: 256 at /var/lib/dpkg/info/linux-base.postinst line 1059, 
  STDIN line 10.
  dpkg: error processing linux-base (--configure):
   subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 9
 
 [...]
 
  I assume the problem is with /dev/hda1 as the output of dosfslabel run
  on any other partition is: Logical sector size is zero.
 
 OK, the normal way to fix the differences between boot sector and its
 backup problem on a vfat filesystem is:
 
   fsck.vfat -ar /dev/hda1
 
 (The filesystem should be unmounted for this procedure.)
 
 However, I have never had to use it on an ext3 partition and I have no
 idea if is safe, therefore I am hesitant to recommend it to you.
 (Fsck.vfat will overwrite the backup of the boot sector with its current
 content, making the two identical again.)  
 
 I would like to see your output of
 
   wipefs /dev/hda1

No output.  There was output before I ran wipe /dev/hda1 the first time.
It said it was removing two bits.

 
 (to verify that the ext3 signature has the normal offset) and also the
 output of
 
   fdisk -l /dev/hda


GNU Fdisk 1.2.4
Copyright (C) 1998 - 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This program is free software, covered by the GNU General Public License.

This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
GNU General Public License for more details.


Disk /dev/hda: 30 GB, 30754321920 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 3739 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes

   Device Boot  Start End  Blocks   Id  System 
/dev/hda1   1 243 1951866   83  Linux
/dev/hda2 2443739280735875  Extended
/dev/hda5 244373928073587   83  Linux

  

Warning: Partition 5 does not end on cylinder boundary.
 
 to check if the partition type is correct.
 
 -- 
 Regards,|
   Florian   |
 
 
Note: e2fsck /dev/hda5 still says

/dev/hda5: 467/3415689 files, 33740347/7023967 blocks

Tom
 -- 
 To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
 with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
 Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100720204346.ga10...@isar.localhost
 
 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100721000927.ga6...@tomgeorge.info

Re: e2fsck: HOWTO tutorial

[Andrei Popescu]

On Jo, 24 iun 10, 13:16:29, Paul E Condon wrote:
 
 I was OP on a related thread a couple of months ago. I would say that
 I abandoned trying to understand issues of checking for errors on USB
 drives as a user. I did gain the impression that what I thought were
 hardware errors were instead more likely software glitches in the kernel
 or in loadable modules. For me, frequent running of sync seems to reduce
 the error rate quite a bit. (By frequent, I mean once or twice a second.
 I do this with a while loop running in a separate xterm.)

Have you tried mounting with the 'sync' option?

Regards,
Andrei
-- 
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: e2fsck: HOWTO tutorial

[Paul E Condon]

On 20100622_022612, Ron Johnson wrote:
 On 06/22/2010 12:33 AM, Augustin wrote:
 
 Hello,
 
 I must learn to use e2fsck as I am having some I/O problems on some of
 my external drives.
 I checked all the existing documentation everywhere I could think of
 (including the Debian official documentation and existing HOWTOs from
 TLDP), but couldn't find anything that is detailed and explicit enough
 for my taste.
 
 I am left with some questions that I hope some of you will be able to
 answer.
 
 1st, is there a way to run e2fsck in a strictly non-destructive but
 informative way, to check the health of a drive?
 (question asked here: http://linux.overshoot.tv/ticket/112 ).
 
 
 The *drive*?  No.  e2fsck checks the filesystem data structures that
 have been written onto the drive.
 
 You need SMART to check the drive.

To OP:

But beware. Drives that have USB interface often (always?) do not have
pass thru of SMART information implemented. If your drive is USB, you 
may not have the option of using SMART.

I was OP on a related thread a couple of months ago. I would say that
I abandoned trying to understand issues of checking for errors on USB
drives as a user. I did gain the impression that what I thought were
hardware errors were instead more likely software glitches in the kernel
or in loadable modules. For me, frequent running of sync seems to reduce
the error rate quite a bit. (By frequent, I mean once or twice a second.
I do this with a while loop running in a separate xterm.)

-- 
Paul E Condon   
pecon...@mesanetworks.net


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100624191629.gf3...@big.lan.gnu

e2fsck: HOWTO tutorial

[Augustin]

Hello,

I must learn to use e2fsck as I am having some I/O problems on some of 
my external drives.
I checked all the existing documentation everywhere I could think of 
(including the Debian official documentation and existing HOWTOs from 
TLDP), but couldn't find anything that is detailed and explicit enough 
for my taste.

I am left with some questions that I hope some of you will be able to 
answer.

1st, is there a way to run e2fsck in a strictly non-destructive but 
informative way, to check the health of a drive?
(question asked here: http://linux.overshoot.tv/ticket/112 ).


2nd, to the dreaded question:

# e2fsck -vfFC0 /dev/sdc1  
e2fsck 1.41.9 (22-Aug-2009)   
Pass 1: Checking inodes, blocks, and sizes
Error reading block 34308186 (Attempt to read block from filesystem 
resulted in short read) while getting next inode from scan.  Ignore 
error? 

What are the consequences of answering either way?
As far as I can tell: answering yes will delete the inode, i.e. data 
will be lost. Answering no will leave the bad block in place and the 
problem will remain.


I have more questions on the topic but this should be a start.


All your answers will be used to compile hopefully the best available 
tutorial on this important topic for a Linux system administrator.
This is barely more than a stub:
http://linux.overshoot.tv/wiki/hardware/e2fsck_file_system_check

Thanks for your help,

Augustin.



-- 
Friends: http://www.reuniting.info/ http://activistsolutions.org/
My projects:
http://astralcity.org/ http://3enjeux.overshoot.tv/ 
http://linux.overshoot.tv/ 
http://overshoot.tv/ http://charityware.info/ http://masquilier.org/
http://openteacher.info/ http://minguo.info/ 
http://www.wechange.org/ http://searching911.info/












.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201006221333.19080.beginner2...@masquilier.org

Re: e2fsck: HOWTO tutorial

[Ron Johnson]

On 06/22/2010 12:33 AM, Augustin wrote:


Hello,

I must learn to use e2fsck as I am having some I/O problems on some of
my external drives.
I checked all the existing documentation everywhere I could think of
(including the Debian official documentation and existing HOWTOs from
TLDP), but couldn't find anything that is detailed and explicit enough
for my taste.

I am left with some questions that I hope some of you will be able to
answer.

1st, is there a way to run e2fsck in a strictly non-destructive but
informative way, to check the health of a drive?
(question asked here: http://linux.overshoot.tv/ticket/112 ).



The *drive*?  No.  e2fsck checks the filesystem data structures that 
have been written onto the drive.


You need SMART to check the drive.



2nd, to the dreaded question:

# e2fsck -vfFC0 /dev/sdc1
e2fsck 1.41.9 (22-Aug-2009)
Pass 1: Checking inodes, blocks, and sizes
Error reading block 34308186 (Attempt to read block from filesystem
resulted in short read) while getting next inode from scan.  Ignore
error?


I don't know.  First question, though, is: are you doing this on a 
mounted filesystem?  If so, You're Doing It Wrong.


Boot from a Live CD (I like Sidux) and run the e2fsck that comes on 
the CD.  The errors might just go away...



What are the consequences of answering either way?
As far as I can tell: answering yes will delete the inode, i.e. data
will be lost. Answering no will leave the bad block in place and the
problem will remain.


I have more questions on the topic but this should be a start.



--
Seek truth from facts.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c206594.7080...@cox.net

Re: e2fsck: HOWTO tutorial

[Augustin]

On Tuesday 22 June 2010 15:26:12 Ron Johnson wrote:
 The *drive*?  No.  e2fsck checks the filesystem data structures
  that have been written onto the drive.

Yes, sorry. I did mean the partition, not the drive.
 
 You need SMART to check the drive.

Yes, I haven't had time to install smartmontools, but I'll do it as 
soon as I've fully understood and documented how to use e2fsck.

 
 I don't know.  First question, though, is: are you doing this on a
 mounted filesystem?  If so, You're Doing It Wrong.

No, it's unmounted. I'm checking an external device.
As to checking mounted devices, the man page is very confusing:
See: http://linux.overshoot.tv/ticket/112
 
 Boot from a Live CD (I like Sidux) and run the e2fsck that comes on
 the CD.  The errors might just go away...

no :-/


Thanks for the replies.


Is there a way to run e2fsck in a strictly non-desctructive, 
informative mode only?

The man page is confusing (see ticket above).

Thanks

Augustin.


-- 
Friends: http://www.reuniting.info/ http://activistsolutions.org/
My projects:
http://astralcity.org/ http://3enjeux.overshoot.tv/ 
http://linux.overshoot.tv/ 
http://overshoot.tv/ http://charityware.info/ http://masquilier.org/
http://openteacher.info/ http://minguo.info/ 
http://www.wechange.org/ http://searching911.info/












.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201006221617.31194.beginner2...@masquilier.org

Re: e2fsck: HOWTO tutorial

[Augustin]

On Tuesday 22 June 2010 15:26:12 Ron Johnson wrote:
 The *drive*?  No.  e2fsck checks the filesystem data structures
  that have been written onto the drive.

Yes, sorry. I did mean the partition, not the drive.
 
 You need SMART to check the drive.

Yes, I haven't had time to install smartmontools, but I'll do it as 
soon as I've fully understood and documented how to use e2fsck.

 
 I don't know.  First question, though, is: are you doing this on a
 mounted filesystem?  If so, You're Doing It Wrong.

No, it's unmounted. I'm checking an external device.
As to checking mounted devices, the man page is very confusing:
See: http://linux.overshoot.tv/ticket/112
 
 Boot from a Live CD (I like Sidux) and run the e2fsck that comes on
 the CD.  The errors might just go away...

no :-/


Thanks for the replies.


Is there a way to run e2fsck in a strictly non-desctructive, 
informative mode only?

The man page is confusing (see ticket above).

Thanks

Augustin.



-- 
Friends: http://www.reuniting.info/ http://activistsolutions.org/
My projects:
http://astralcity.org/ http://3enjeux.overshoot.tv/ 
http://linux.overshoot.tv/ 
http://overshoot.tv/ http://charityware.info/ http://masquilier.org/
http://openteacher.info/ http://minguo.info/ 
http://www.wechange.org/ http://searching911.info/












.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201006221551.51847.augustin2...@masquilier.org

Re: e2fsck: HOWTO tutorial

[Ron Johnson]

On 06/22/2010 03:17 AM, Augustin wrote:

On Tuesday 22 June 2010 15:26:12 Ron Johnson wrote:

The *drive*?  No.  e2fsck checks the filesystem data structures
  that have been written onto the drive.


Yes, sorry. I did mean the partition, not the drive.


You need SMART to check the drive.


Yes, I haven't had time to install smartmontools, but I'll do it as
soon as I've fully understood and documented how to use e2fsck.



Hah!




I don't know.  First question, though, is: are you doing this on a
mounted filesystem?  If so, You're Doing It Wrong.


No, it's unmounted. I'm checking an external device.
As to checking mounted devices, the man page is very confusing:
See: http://linux.overshoot.tv/ticket/112



Yeah, I read that, but I think you're over-analyzing.  Just never 
fsck a mounted fs.



Boot from a Live CD (I like Sidux) and run the e2fsck that comes on
the CD.  The errors might just go away...


no :-/



Hmmm, that doesn't sound good.  Have you googled?  Was the fs 
cleanly unmounted?


--
Seek truth from facts.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c207676.6090...@cox.net

Re: e2fsck: HOWTO tutorial

[Jochen Schulz]

Augustin:
 On Tuesday 22 June 2010 15:26:12 Ron Johnson wrote:
 The *drive*?  No.  e2fsck checks the filesystem data structures
  that have been written onto the drive.
 
 Yes, sorry. I did mean the partition, not the drive.

No, you didn't mean the partition, you meant the filesystem. ;-) The
usage of these terms is usually very lax, but after you realize that you
can create filesystems not only on partitions, but in other files, raw
storage devices (/dev/sdX) or logical volumes, the terms become quite
distinctive.

 No, it's unmounted. I'm checking an external device.
 As to checking mounted devices, the man page is very confusing:
 See: http://linux.overshoot.tv/ticket/112

I don't agree. It says:

- Don't fsck mounted filesystems.
- When run with -n, the fsck is read-only.
- Don't run fsck -n on mounted filesystems.

Maybe the paragraphs could be restructured a little, but I think all
these points come acrosse quite clearly.

BTW, what's the purpose of that site? Why are these bugs not reported
upstream? It looks like you are the sole user of that site.

 Is there a way to run e2fsck in a strictly non-desctructive, 
 informative mode only?

From the manpage:

 -n   Open the filesystem read-only, and assume an answer of  `no'  to
  all  questions.   Allows e2fsck to be used non-interactively.
  This option may not be specified at the same time as the -p or
  -y options.

What's unclear about it?

J.
-- 
Nothing is as I planned it.
[Agree]   [Disagree]
 http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: e2fsck: HOWTO tutorial

[Mark Allums]

On 6/22/2010 3:47 AM, Jochen Schulz wrote:


What's unclear about it?



The manpage doesn't say:  Okay, when this happens, run this.  When that 
happens, run that.  (That's what he wants.  And, I admit, what I want, 
sometimes.)





--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c207bcd.5020...@allums.com

Re: e2fsck: HOWTO tutorial

[Huang, Tao]

On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Augustin beginner2...@masquilier.org wrote:

 Hello,

 I must learn to use e2fsck as I am having some I/O problems on some of
 my external drives.
 I checked all the existing documentation everywhere I could think of
 (including the Debian official documentation and existing HOWTOs from
 TLDP), but couldn't find anything that is detailed and explicit enough
 for my taste.

 I am left with some questions that I hope some of you will be able to
 answer.

 1st, is there a way to run e2fsck in a strictly non-destructive but
 informative way, to check the health of a drive?
 (question asked here: http://linux.overshoot.tv/ticket/112 ).

-c
This option causes e2fsck to use badblocks(8) program to do a
read-only scan of the device in order to find any bad blocks.  If any
bad blocks are found, they are  added  to  the  bad block  inode  to
prevent them from being allocated to a file or directory.  If this
option is specified twice, then the bad block scan will be done using
a non-destructive read-write test.

is this what you want?

combine it with -n and check the exit code to see if errors are found.

 2nd, to the dreaded question:

 # e2fsck -vfFC0 /dev/sdc1
 e2fsck 1.41.9 (22-Aug-2009)
 Pass 1: Checking inodes, blocks, and sizes
 Error reading block 34308186 (Attempt to read block from filesystem
 resulted in short read) while getting next inode from scan.  Ignore
 error?

 What are the consequences of answering either way?
 As far as I can tell: answering yes will delete the inode, i.e. data
 will be lost. Answering no will leave the bad block in place and the
 problem will remain.


 I have more questions on the topic but this should be a start.


 All your answers will be used to compile hopefully the best available
 tutorial on this important topic for a Linux system administrator.
 This is barely more than a stub:
 http://linux.overshoot.tv/wiki/hardware/e2fsck_file_system_check

 Thanks for your help,

 Augustin.


Tao
--
http://huangtao.me/
http://www.google.com/profiles/UniIsland


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/aanlktikjjz2gxtmqho1kbjra9onocarsrmuygsuyw...@mail.gmail.com

comme un upgrade après e2fsck

[corbie]

Bonjour,

A la suite d'un figeage du PC sous Debian Lenny,
j'ai fait un reboot hardware et ai lancé e2fsck /dev/sd..

Le système a fait un fix de nombreux inodes, qui a été réparé.

Après le reboot, je constate que l'esthétique du bureau a changé,
ainsi que celle de plusieurs applis ... comme si il s'agissait d'un upgrade de 
l'OS
et/ou du bureau KDE ... (sa version semble pourtant inchangée : 3.5.10)

D'autre part, je ne sais pas à quoi correspond cette nouvelle esthétique.

Merci.

--
Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question :
http://wiki.debian.org/fr/FrenchLists

Pour vous DESABONNER, envoyez un message avec comme objet unsubscribe
vers debian-user-french-requ...@lists.debian.org
En cas de soucis, contactez EN ANGLAIS listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201004121551.47308.cor...@free.fr

TR: comme un upgrade après e2fsck

[Thomas Harding]

-- msg original --
Sujet: comme un upgrade après e2fsck
De: cor...@free.fr
Date: 2010.04.12 15:51

)Le système a fait un fix de nombreux 
)inodes, qui a été réparé.

)Après le reboot, je constate que 
)l'esthétique du bureau a changé,

Voir Aptitude reinstall
Avec un peu de chances ta base de secours n'est pas touchee si la base dpkg est 
out
Essaye d'abord avec la base origine

Separer les sytemes de fichier et
Toujours sauvegarder  ailleurs

Sinon lvm est top pour hotspares

-- 
Thomas Harding t...@thomas-harding.name
l'info libre est responsable

--
Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question :
http://wiki.debian.org/fr/FrenchLists

Pour vous DESABONNER, envoyez un message avec comme objet unsubscribe
vers debian-user-french-requ...@lists.debian.org
En cas de soucis, contactez EN ANGLAIS listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4snlhfzxrn04.hnkxg...@smtp.thomas-harding.name

Re: lvm2 and e2fsck

[Mark Allums]

Mark Allums wrote:

Ron Johnson wrote:

On 02/23/2009 01:52 AM, Mark Allums wrote:
[snip]



0. I have lvm2 running on top of Linux md RAID, and don't actually 
have any ext4 file sytem partitions to check, so that particular fsck 
command was destined to fail.  But it shows it's there, when it's needed


Except this was a virgin fs, with extents enabled.



No, no, I mean *my* output from running the program must show failure. I 
edited out the rest of the output, all about having a bad superblock, 
and all.  There is no /dev/sda2 on my system.


If *your* ext4 system is screwed up, I would guess something in the 
chain is not there yet.  I have a Debian kernel-experimental 2.28.1-1 
(2.28.1-2) kernel running, but I have yet to create a ext4 partition. If 
I tried it, I think I would start on a bare metal drive, no mdraid or 
lvm to complicate things.  In theory, shouldn't matter, in practice...




Mark A.

Uh, did I misunderstand (were we on different frequencies) or is it just 
that the conversation is over?


Mark A.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: lvm2 and e2fsck

[Ron Johnson]

On 02/24/2009 06:21 AM, Mark Allums wrote:

Mark Allums wrote:

Ron Johnson wrote:

On 02/23/2009 01:52 AM, Mark Allums wrote:
[snip]



0. I have lvm2 running on top of Linux md RAID, and don't actually 
have any ext4 file sytem partitions to check, so that particular 
fsck command was destined to fail.  But it shows it's there, when 
it's needed


Except this was a virgin fs, with extents enabled.



No, no, I mean *my* output from running the program must show failure. 
I edited out the rest of the output, all about having a bad 
superblock, and all.  There is no /dev/sda2 on my system.


If *your* ext4 system is screwed up, I would guess something in the 
chain is not there yet.  I have a Debian kernel-experimental 2.28.1-1 
(2.28.1-2) kernel running, but I have yet to create a ext4 partition. 
If I tried it, I think I would start on a bare metal drive, no mdraid 
or lvm to complicate things.  In theory, shouldn't matter, in practice...




Mark A.

Uh, did I misunderstand (were we on different frequencies) or is it just 
that the conversation is over?


Not much more for me to say...

Though, are there any commands which would indicate whether my LV or 
VGs are screwed up?  (Fixing them might allow me to get my data back.)


--
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

The feeling of disgust at seeing a human female in a Relationship
with a chimp male is Homininphobia, and you should be ashamed of
yourself.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: lvm2 and e2fsck

[Matthew Moore]

On Tuesday 24 February 2009 11:49:26 am Ron Johnson wrote:
 Though, are there any commands which would indicate whether my LV or
 VGs are screwed up?  (Fixing them might allow me to get my data back.)

Do you think that your volume descriptors got hosed? The main LVM diagnostic 
commands are:

pvs, pvscan, lvscan, pvscan, pvdisplay, lvdisplay, vgdisplay

When you remake your LVM, you may want to use vgcfgbackup to save your volume 
descriptors...

I re-read your original post. Are you saying that your problem is that you 
don't 
have a /sbin/fsck.ext4? It looks like this is packaged in  e2fsprogs 1.41.3-1 
(in lenny). Am I misunderstanding your problem?

MM


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: lvm2 and e2fsck

[Ron Johnson]

On 02/24/2009 03:34 PM, Matthew Moore wrote:

On Tuesday 24 February 2009 11:49:26 am Ron Johnson wrote:

Though, are there any commands which would indicate whether my LV or
VGs are screwed up?  (Fixing them might allow me to get my data back.)


Do you think that your volume descriptors got hosed? The main LVM diagnostic 
commands are:


pvs, pvscan, lvscan, pvscan, pvdisplay, lvdisplay, vgdisplay


This looks reasonable.

# lvdisplay
Logging initialised at Tue Feb 24 15:42:45 2009
Set umask to 0077
lvdisplayFinding all logical volumes
lvdisplay  --- Logical volume ---
lvdisplay  LV Name/dev/main_huge_vg/main_huge_lv
lvdisplay  VG Namemain_huge_vg
lvdisplay  LV UUIDPgrlks-mtmc-GuYh-kvPU-Mr78-w9b6-uykW8A
lvdisplay  LV Write Accessread/write
lvdisplay  LV Status  available
lvdisplay  # open 0
lvdisplay  LV Size2.69 TB
lvdisplay  Current LE 22023
lvdisplay  Segments   9
lvdisplay  Allocation inherit
lvdisplay  Read ahead sectors auto
lvdisplay  - currently set to 256
lvdisplay  Block device   254:0
lvdisplay
lvdisplayWiping internal VG cache


When you remake your LVM, you may want to use vgcfgbackup to save your volume 
descriptors...


Remake it?  From scratch?

I re-read your original post. Are you saying that your problem is that you don't 
have a /sbin/fsck.ext4? It looks like this is packaged in  e2fsprogs 1.41.3-1 
(in lenny). Am I misunderstanding your problem?


No, I definitely have /sbin/fsck.ext4.

--
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

The feeling of disgust at seeing a human female in a Relationship
with a chimp male is Homininphobia, and you should be ashamed of
yourself.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: lvm2 and e2fsck

[Matthew Moore]

On Tuesday 24 February 2009 02:44:14 pm Ron Johnson wrote:
 This looks reasonable.
 # lvdisplay
  Logging initialised at Tue Feb 24 15:42:45 2009
  Set umask to 0077
 lvdisplayFinding all logical volumes
 lvdisplay  --- Logical volume ---
 lvdisplay  LV Name/dev/main_huge_vg/main_huge_lv
 lvdisplay  VG Namemain_huge_vg
 lvdisplay  LV UUIDPgrlks-mtmc-GuYh-kvPU-Mr78-w9b6-uykW8A
 lvdisplay  LV Write Accessread/write
 lvdisplay  LV Status  available
 lvdisplay  # open 0
 lvdisplay  LV Size2.69 TB
 lvdisplay  Current LE 22023
 lvdisplay  Segments   9
 lvdisplay  Allocation inherit
 lvdisplay  Read ahead sectors auto
 lvdisplay  - currently set to 256
 lvdisplay  Block device   254:0
 lvdisplay
 lvdisplayWiping internal VG cache

Yes it does.

  When you remake your LVM, you may want to use vgcfgbackup to save your
  volume descriptors...

 Remake it?  From scratch?

I suppose I should have said If you remake..., as in if you are unable to 
recover your data. LVM is supposed to keep backup group descriptors, but I 
supposed that those could have been hosed too...

  I re-read your original post. Are you saying that your problem is that
  you don't have a /sbin/fsck.ext4? It looks like this is packaged in 
  e2fsprogs 1.41.3-1 (in lenny). Am I misunderstanding your problem?

 No, I definitely have /sbin/fsck.ext4.

But running it doesn't fix the group descriptor error? This person is having 
the 
same problem and looks to have resorted to dumping the fs and looking at it 
with a hex editor:

http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-ext4/2009/1/5/4598534

MM


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: lvm2 and e2fsck

[Ron Johnson]

On 02/24/2009 06:15 PM, Matthew Moore wrote:

On Tuesday 24 February 2009 02:44:14 pm Ron Johnson wrote:

[snip]

No, I definitely have /sbin/fsck.ext4.


But running it doesn't fix the group descriptor error? This person is having the 
same problem and looks to have resorted to dumping the fs and looking at it 
with a hex editor:


http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-ext4/2009/1/5/4598534



My ext4 has extents enabled, but apparently fsck.ext4 doesn't yet 
understand them.


--
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

The feeling of disgust at seeing a human female in a Relationship
with a chimp male is Homininphobia, and you should be ashamed of
yourself.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: lvm2 and e2fsck

[Ron Johnson]

On 02/23/2009 01:52 AM, Mark Allums wrote:
[snip]



0. I have lvm2 running on top of Linux md RAID, and don't actually have 
any ext4 file sytem partitions to check, so that particular fsck command 
was destined to fail.  But it shows it's there, when it's needed.


Except this was a virgin fs, with extents enabled.

--
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

The feeling of disgust at seeing a human female in a Relationship
with a chimp male is Homininphobia, and you should be ashamed of
yourself.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: lvm2 and e2fsck

[Mark Allums]

Ron Johnson wrote:

On 02/23/2009 01:52 AM, Mark Allums wrote:
[snip]



0. I have lvm2 running on top of Linux md RAID, and don't actually 
have any ext4 file sytem partitions to check, so that particular fsck 
command was destined to fail.  But it shows it's there, when it's needed


Except this was a virgin fs, with extents enabled.



No, no, I mean *my* output from running the program must show failure. 
I edited out the rest of the output, all about having a bad superblock, 
and all.  There is no /dev/sda2 on my system.


If *your* ext4 system is screwed up, I would guess something in the 
chain is not there yet.  I have a Debian kernel-experimental 2.28.1-1 
(2.28.1-2) kernel running, but I have yet to create a ext4 partition. 
If I tried it, I think I would start on a bare metal drive, no mdraid or 
lvm to complicate things.  In theory, shouldn't matter, in practice...


MArk Allums



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

lvm2 and e2fsck

[Ron Johnson]

Hi,

# mount -v -t ext4 /dev/main_huge_vg/main_huge_lv /data/big

$ dmesg | tail -n2
EXT4-fs: ext4_check_descriptors: Block bitmap for group 0 not in 
group (block 3120627712)!

EXT4-fs: group descriptors corrupted!


Can I just do this?
# e2fsck /dev/main_huge_vg/main_huge_lv

--
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

The feeling of disgust at seeing a human female in a Relationship
with a chimp male is Homininphobia, and you should be ashamed of
yourself.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: lvm2 and e2fsck

[Mark Allums]

Ron Johnson wrote:

Hi,

# mount -v -t ext4 /dev/main_huge_vg/main_huge_lv /data/big

$ dmesg | tail -n2
EXT4-fs: ext4_check_descriptors: Block bitmap for group 0 not in group 
(block 3120627712)!

EXT4-fs: group descriptors corrupted!


Can I just do this?
# e2fsck /dev/main_huge_vg/main_huge_lv



You know the usual rules about fsck'ing a mounted file system?

ext4 reduces to ext3, or even ext2 as long as you haven't use extents 
(and the journal's reasonably clean).


So yes.

Haven't they added ext4 to the fsprogs?  Is there not a fsck.ext4?

Mark Allums



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: lvm2 and e2fsck

[Ron Johnson]

On 02/22/2009 08:38 PM, Mark Allums wrote:

Ron Johnson wrote:

Hi,

# mount -v -t ext4 /dev/main_huge_vg/main_huge_lv /data/big

$ dmesg | tail -n2
EXT4-fs: ext4_check_descriptors: Block bitmap for group 0 not in group 
(block 3120627712)!

EXT4-fs: group descriptors corrupted!


Can I just do this?
# e2fsck /dev/main_huge_vg/main_huge_lv



You know the usual rules about fsck'ing a mounted file system?


Yup...

ext4 reduces to ext3, or even ext2 as long as you haven't use extents 
(and the journal's reasonably clean).


Yep.


So yes.


That's what I thought.


Haven't they added ext4 to the fsprogs?  Is there not a fsck.ext4?


Hmmm...

http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-e...@vger.kernel.org/msg04690.html

--
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

The feeling of disgust at seeing a human female in a Relationship
with a chimp male is Homininphobia, and you should be ashamed of
yourself.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: lvm2 and e2fsck

[Mark Allums]

Ron Johnson wrote:

On 02/22/2009 08:38 PM, Mark Allums wrote:

Ron Johnson wrote:

Hi,

# mount -v -t ext4 /dev/main_huge_vg/main_huge_lv /data/big

$ dmesg | tail -n2
EXT4-fs: ext4_check_descriptors: Block bitmap for group 0 not in 
group (block 3120627712)!

EXT4-fs: group descriptors corrupted!


Can I just do this?
# e2fsck /dev/main_huge_vg/main_huge_lv



You know the usual rules about fsck'ing a mounted file system?


Yup...

ext4 reduces to ext3, or even ext2 as long as you haven't use extents 
(and the journal's reasonably clean).


Yep.


So yes.


That's what I thought.


Haven't they added ext4 to the fsprogs?  Is there not a fsck.ext4?


Hmmm...

http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-e...@vger.kernel.org/msg04690.html



#fsck.ext4 /dev/sda2
e2fsck 1.41.3 (12-Oct-2008)
fsck.ext4: No such file or directory while trying to open /dev/sda2





I think my mixed Etch/Lenny/Squeeze/Sid/Experimental abomination of a 
system has had the ext4 fsck capability for quite some time. [0]



Mark Allums


0. I have lvm2 running on top of Linux md RAID, and don't actually have 
any ext4 file sytem partitions to check, so that particular fsck command 
was destined to fail.  But it shows it's there, when it's needed.
















--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: e2fsck /dev/md0 issues

[M.Lewis]

Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:

On Sunday 2008 December 21 01:02:04 M.Lewis wrote:

Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:

On Saturday 2008 December 20 22:42:10 M.Lewis wrote:

The filesystem size (according to the superblock) is 24419 blocks

   ^


The physical size of the device is 244189984 blocks

 ^

24419  244189984.  You need to resize your filesystem to actually
fit on /dev/md0.

Disk /dev/sda: 1000.2 GB, 1000204886016 bytes
Disk /dev/sdb: 1000.2 GB, 1000204886016 bytes

I'm confused. It's complaining about bad partition or superblock. You
said I need to resize my fs, but according to fdisk, they are the same.
Aren't they?


Your filesystem isn't on raw partitions.  It is on the /dev/md0 device.  That 
device is 244189984 blocks, as e2fsck told you.  You could also use 
blockdev --getsize64 to get the size of the device in bytes.


The bad partition part of the message is a bit misleading, it means bad 
block device but was written with the assumption that the block device the 
filesystem is on is a partition and not something else.  In your case it is a 
software RAID device.  The bad ... superblock it is talking about is the 
ext2/3 superblock that contains the filesystem information.


The block device (/dev/md0) and the ext2/3 superblock (stored multiple times 
on /dev/md0) disagree on the size of the filesystem.  The boot process (IIRC, 
mount in specific) correctly assumes that one of them must be wrong and 
thus bad.


I assume that /dev/md0 knows it's size, so the filesystem superblock is bad 
and you should correct it by resizing the filesystem.


Is there a way to know for certain that /dev/md0 knows the correct size?

Maybe what I should do is break the array and start over? Making sure 
that e2fsck on both drives is good to go beforehand of course.


Maybe that is a more drastic action than is needed though.




Are you talking about LVM sizing?


I'm not sure what you mean by LVM sizing.  I am talking about the size of 
the device you've put the filesystem on, and it really doesn't matter if it's 
on a LV or not.


Well, part of my confusion is over my previous topic of reorgainizing 
LVM. Same machine, still working on it.


At the moment, the RAID1 array is not part of LVM.



BTW, in case you didn't know, modern software RAID uses some space on the 
component block devices to store a RAID superblock that contains the UUID of 
array, among other things, by default.  This can be turned off, but it would 
require re-creating the array.  This means that a RAID-1 over two devices 
will be slightly smaller than the smallest device and RAID-0 over two devices 
will be slightly smaller than twice the smallest device.


No, I wasn't aware of that. Thanks.

--

 IBM: Innovation By Management
  01:55:01 up 4 days,  1:32,  1 user,  load average: 0.04, 0.03, 0.01

 Linux Registered User #241685  http://counter.li.org


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: e2fsck /dev/md0 issues

[Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.]

On Sunday 21 December 2008, M.Lewis ca...@cajuninc.com wrote about 'Re: 
e2fsck /dev/md0 issues':
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
 I assume that /dev/md0 knows it's size, so the filesystem superblock is
 bad and you should correct it by resizing the filesystem.

Is there a way to know for certain that /dev/md0 knows the correct size?

Well, not that I know of off the top of my head.  Perhaps there is 
some check mode to mdadm?

Even if it were somehow wrong it would still be right.  Let me explain.  
The md driver that determines the devices size is the same driver that 
controls all reads and writes to the device.  It won't let you (or a 
filesystem) read/write into areas it doesn't think are there, based on the 
size it reports.  So, even if the size it reports is calculated 
erroneously, you (or a filesystem) won't be able to read or write to the 
device outside of the bounds implied by the reported size.

In short, unless you have some good reason to suspect your md driver is 
broken, trust it.

Maybe what I should do is break the array and start over? Making sure
that e2fsck on both drives is good to go beforehand of course.

Maybe that is a more drastic action than is needed though.

Yep.  You just need to resize your filesystem to the correct size, as 
reported by the /dev/md0 device and suggested by my earlier email.
-- 
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. 
bs...@volumehost.net  ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy   `-'(. .)`-' 
http://iguanasuicide.org/  \_/ 


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: e2fsck /dev/md0 issues

[M.Lewis]

Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
On Sunday 21 December 2008, M.Lewis ca...@cajuninc.com wrote about 'Re: 
e2fsck /dev/md0 issues':

Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:



Maybe what I should do is break the array and start over? Making sure
that e2fsck on both drives is good to go beforehand of course.

Maybe that is a more drastic action than is needed though.


Yep.  You just need to resize your filesystem to the correct size, as 
reported by the /dev/md0 device and suggested by my earlier email.


Ok, now this is all sinking in I think. Thanks for the detailed 
explanation and time you spent to do it. It is appreciated.


So all I need to do is 'resize2fs /dev/md0 244189984'. Then e2fsck 
should run with no errors.

--

 Computers are unreliable, but humans are even more unreliable.  - Gilb
  03:40:01 up 4 days,  3:17,  1 user,  load average: 0.12, 0.07, 0.05

 Linux Registered User #241685  http://counter.li.org


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: e2fsck /dev/md0 issues

[subscriptions]

On Sun, 2008-12-21 at 05:42 +0100, M.Lewis wrote:
 
 I having an issue with my RAID array. I get some errors on boot, but the
 boot process is going beyond them and mounting the drive anyhow. So far
 as I can tell, all the data is present and readable. I would like to
 resolve these errors though. I'm not sure if it matters, but LVM is not
 installed on /dev/md0.
 
 I've tried all the possible (I think) combinations of 'e2fsck -b x
 /dev/md0' with no luck at all. Google searches have not yet produced
 anything that has seemed to help.
 
 rattler:~# e2fsck /dev/md0
 e2fsck 1.41.3 (12-Oct-2008)
 The filesystem size (according to the superblock) is 24419 blocks
 The physical size of the device is 244189984 blocks
 Either the superblock or the partition table is likely to be corrupt!
 Aborty? no
 
 /dev/md0 contains a file system with errors, check forced.
 Pass 1: Checking inodes, blocks, and sizes
 Pass 2: Checking directory structure
 Pass 3: Checking directory connectivity
 Pass 4: Checking reference counts
 Pass 5: Checking group summary information
 /dev/md0: 430478/61054976 files (0.6% non-contiguous),
 81536022/24419 blocks
 rattler:~#
 
 Even if I abort the above check, the error is still present.
 
 Thanks,
 M
 --

Better use smart control (smartctl or smartd) to check the disks.

If there is an error logged, just replace the disk.

Best,

Rob



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: e2fsck /dev/md0 issues

[Alex Samad]

On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 03:44:04AM -0600, M.Lewis wrote:

 Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
 On Sunday 21 December 2008, M.Lewis ca...@cajuninc.com wrote about 
 'Re: e2fsck /dev/md0 issues':
 Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:

 Maybe what I should do is break the array and start over? Making sure
 that e2fsck on both drives is good to go beforehand of course.

 Maybe that is a more drastic action than is needed though.

 Yep.  You just need to resize your filesystem to the correct size, as  
 reported by the /dev/md0 device and suggested by my earlier email.

 Ok, now this is all sinking in I think. Thanks for the detailed  
 explanation and time you spent to do it. It is appreciated.

 So all I need to do is 'resize2fs /dev/md0 244189984'. Then e2fsck  
 should run with no errors.

I would suggest maybe a resize2fs /dev/md0 and see what that does first
?  The other question to ask is how it ended up like this. as somebody
else suggested maybe a smartctl on the to base drives to check them
might be in order!


 -- 

  Computers are unreliable, but humans are even more unreliable.  - Gilb
   03:40:01 up 4 days,  3:17,  1 user,  load average: 0.12, 0.07, 0.05

  Linux Registered User #241685  http://counter.li.org


 -- 
 To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a 
 subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org



-- 
I'm also mindful that man should never try to put words in God's mouth. I 
mean, we should never ascribe natural disasters or anything else, to God. We 
are in no way, shape, or form should a human being, play God.

- George W. Bush
01/14/2005
Washington, DC
Appearing on ABC's 20/20


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: e2fsck /dev/md0 issues

[Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.]

On Sunday 2008 December 21 15:00:44 Alex Samad wrote:
 On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 03:44:04AM -0600, M.Lewis wrote:
  Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
  On Sunday 21 December 2008, M.Lewis ca...@cajuninc.com wrote about
  'Re: e2fsck /dev/md0 issues':
  Maybe what I should do is break the array and start over?
  Maybe that is a more drastic action than is needed though.
 
  Yep.  You just need to resize your filesystem to the correct size, as
  reported by the /dev/md0 device and suggested by my earlier email.
 
  So all I need to do is 'resize2fs /dev/md0 244189984'. Then e2fsck
  should run with no errors.

 I would suggest maybe a resize2fs /dev/md0 and see what that does first?
 The other question to ask is how it ended up like this.

Probably by imaging and deploying the fs with dd.  Either that or some 
ill-informed forcing of the filesystem to the larger size.

I really don't think there's anything wrong with the drives or the md device.
-- 
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. 
b...@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy   `-'(. .)`-' 
http://iguanasuicide.net/  \_/ 


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: e2fsck /dev/md0 issues

[M.Lewis]

Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:

On Sunday 2008 December 21 15:00:44 Alex Samad wrote:

On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 03:44:04AM -0600, M.Lewis wrote:

Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:

On Sunday 21 December 2008, M.Lewis ca...@cajuninc.com wrote about
'Re: e2fsck /dev/md0 issues':

Maybe what I should do is break the array and start over?
Maybe that is a more drastic action than is needed though.

Yep.  You just need to resize your filesystem to the correct size, as
reported by the /dev/md0 device and suggested by my earlier email.

So all I need to do is 'resize2fs /dev/md0 244189984'. Then e2fsck
should run with no errors.

I would suggest maybe a resize2fs /dev/md0 and see what that does first?
The other question to ask is how it ended up like this.


Probably by imaging and deploying the fs with dd.  Either that or some 
ill-informed forcing of the filesystem to the larger size.


I really don't think there's anything wrong with the drives or the md device.


I wondered myself how it got that way to start with. The drives in 
question are ~ 2 months old. I can safely say that 'dd' has never been 
used on them. LVM is not installed on them.


I know at one point, the mirror was broken and reassembled, but I 
wouldn't think that would have caused the issue. Maybe so.


--

 Structured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.
  01:40:01 up 5 days,  1:17,  1 user,  load average: 0.01, 0.04, 0.02

 Linux Registered User #241685  http://counter.li.org


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

e2fsck /dev/md0 issues

[M.Lewis]

I having an issue with my RAID array. I get some errors on boot, but the 
boot process is going beyond them and mounting the drive anyhow. So far 
as I can tell, all the data is present and readable. I would like to 
resolve these errors though. I'm not sure if it matters, but LVM is not 
installed on /dev/md0.


I've tried all the possible (I think) combinations of 'e2fsck -b x 
/dev/md0' with no luck at all. Google searches have not yet produced 
anything that has seemed to help.


rattler:~# e2fsck /dev/md0
e2fsck 1.41.3 (12-Oct-2008)
The filesystem size (according to the superblock) is 24419 blocks
The physical size of the device is 244189984 blocks
Either the superblock or the partition table is likely to be corrupt!
Aborty? no

/dev/md0 contains a file system with errors, check forced.
Pass 1: Checking inodes, blocks, and sizes
Pass 2: Checking directory structure
Pass 3: Checking directory connectivity
Pass 4: Checking reference counts
Pass 5: Checking group summary information
/dev/md0: 430478/61054976 files (0.6% non-contiguous), 
81536022/24419 blocks

rattler:~#

Even if I abort the above check, the error is still present.

Thanks,
M
--

 Never violate the Prime Directory!  C:\
  22:35:01 up 3 days, 22:12,  1 user,  load average: 0.16, 0.06, 0.01

 Linux Registered User #241685  http://counter.li.org


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: e2fsck /dev/md0 issues

[Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.]

On Saturday 2008 December 20 22:42:10 M.Lewis wrote:
 The filesystem size (according to the superblock) is 24419 blocks
   ^
 The physical size of the device is 244189984 blocks
 ^

24419  244189984.  You need to resize your filesystem to actually fit 
on /dev/md0.
-- 
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. 
b...@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy   `-'(. .)`-' 
http://iguanasuicide.net/  \_/ 


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: e2fsck /dev/md0 issues

[M.Lewis]

Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:

On Saturday 2008 December 20 22:42:10 M.Lewis wrote:

The filesystem size (according to the superblock) is 24419 blocks

   ^

The physical size of the device is 244189984 blocks

 ^

24419  244189984.  You need to resize your filesystem to actually fit 
on /dev/md0.


Disk /dev/sda: 1000.2 GB, 1000204886016 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 121601 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
Disk identifier: 0x6c53e0bd

   Device Boot  Start End  Blocks   Id  System
/dev/sda1   1  121601   976760001   fd  Linux raid 
autodetect


Disk /dev/sdb: 1000.2 GB, 1000204886016 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 121601 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
Disk identifier: 0x62897930

   Device Boot  Start End  Blocks   Id  System
/dev/sdb1   1  121601   976760001   fd  Linux raid 
autodetect



I'm confused. It's complaining about bad partition or superblock. You 
said I need to resize my fs, but according to fdisk, they are the same. 
Aren't they?


Are you talking about LVM sizing?

Thanks,
Mike

--

 You forgot to do your backup 16 days ago.  Tomorrow you'll need that 
version.

  00:55:01 up 4 days, 32 min,  1 user,  load average: 0.00, 0.03, 0.05

 Linux Registered User #241685  http://counter.li.org


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: e2fsck /dev/md0 issues

[Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.]

On Sunday 2008 December 21 01:02:04 M.Lewis wrote:
 Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
  On Saturday 2008 December 20 22:42:10 M.Lewis wrote:
  The filesystem size (according to the superblock) is 24419 blocks
 
 ^
 
  The physical size of the device is 244189984 blocks
 
   ^
 
  24419  244189984.  You need to resize your filesystem to actually
  fit on /dev/md0.

 Disk /dev/sda: 1000.2 GB, 1000204886016 bytes
 Disk /dev/sdb: 1000.2 GB, 1000204886016 bytes

 I'm confused. It's complaining about bad partition or superblock. You
 said I need to resize my fs, but according to fdisk, they are the same.
 Aren't they?

Your filesystem isn't on raw partitions.  It is on the /dev/md0 device.  That 
device is 244189984 blocks, as e2fsck told you.  You could also use 
blockdev --getsize64 to get the size of the device in bytes.

The bad partition part of the message is a bit misleading, it means bad 
block device but was written with the assumption that the block device the 
filesystem is on is a partition and not something else.  In your case it is a 
software RAID device.  The bad ... superblock it is talking about is the 
ext2/3 superblock that contains the filesystem information.

The block device (/dev/md0) and the ext2/3 superblock (stored multiple times 
on /dev/md0) disagree on the size of the filesystem.  The boot process (IIRC, 
mount in specific) correctly assumes that one of them must be wrong and 
thus bad.

I assume that /dev/md0 knows it's size, so the filesystem superblock is bad 
and you should correct it by resizing the filesystem.

 Are you talking about LVM sizing?

I'm not sure what you mean by LVM sizing.  I am talking about the size of 
the device you've put the filesystem on, and it really doesn't matter if it's 
on a LV or not.

BTW, in case you didn't know, modern software RAID uses some space on the 
component block devices to store a RAID superblock that contains the UUID of 
array, among other things, by default.  This can be turned off, but it would 
require re-creating the array.  This means that a RAID-1 over two devices 
will be slightly smaller than the smallest device and RAID-0 over two devices 
will be slightly smaller than twice the smallest device.
-- 
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. 
b...@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy   `-'(. .)`-' 
http://iguanasuicide.net/  \_/ 


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.