Re: FYI: LFS Thread On GRUB non-boots, e2fsprogs, & mke2fs
On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 10:06:30PM -0500, Felix Miata wrote: [...] > All my installations that use a separate filesystem for /boot/ use EXT2. It > still > works as good as ever for such an infrequent use environment, with no way to > get > ahead of Grub evolution. :) There are more reasons for that: you don't necessarily want a journal there (you can disable the journal on ext4, though. I've done this for read-mostly images for SD cards built into RPis and their ilk). Cheers -- t signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: FYI: LFS Thread On GRUB non-boots, e2fsprogs, & mke2fs
Cindy Sue Causey composed on 2023-02-19 15:30 (UTC-0500): > Cindy Sue Causey wrote: >> Hi.. This is just regurgitating something related to my coincidentally >> referencing several years of GRUB non-boots yesterday. The latest on >> this Linux From Scratch thread came into my inbox this morning, and it >> just sounds like it might help some Users having booting problems >> similar to what I've experienced. >> The Linux From Scratch thread is here: >> https://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/sympa/arc/lfs-dev/2023-02/msg00018.html >> Today's entry referenced this from Launchpad from 2019: >> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/grub2/+bug/1844012 > Also from Debian on 2023.02.15. > https://www.mail-archive.com/debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org/msg1895219.html > Playing with this has been.. fun.. I guess. I found a > "metadata_csum_seed" culprit in /etc/mke2fs(.)conf. It's in the line > for ext4 which is what I use. > Saw a mention of a patch online. While trying to track that down so > that this is approached in a Linux-defined methodical way, I found > Debian's bugs entry there. Their expressed knowledge of this situation > is why the installer's installation booted on my end a few days ago. > Their mention of debootstrap installs NOT booting for some of us is > exactly what I'm personally experiencing right now. All my installations that use a separate filesystem for /boot/ use EXT2. It still works as good as ever for such an infrequent use environment, with no way to get ahead of Grub evolution. :) -- Evolution as taught in public schools is, like religion, based on faith, not based on science. Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata
Re: FYI: LFS Thread On GRUB non-boots, e2fsprogs, & mke2fs
On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 03:30:52PM -0500, Cindy Sue Causey wrote: > Found a brand new 2023.02.15 Debian bugs reference for this.. > > > On 2/19/23, Cindy Sue Causey wrote: > > Hi.. This is just regurgitating something related to my coincidentally > > referencing several years of GRUB non-boots yesterday. The latest on > > this Linux From Scratch thread came into my inbox this morning, and it > > just sounds like it might help some Users having booting problems > > similar to what I've experienced. > > > > The Linux From Scratch thread is here: > > > > https://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/sympa/arc/lfs-dev/2023-02/msg00018.html > > > > Today's entry referenced this from Launchpad from 2019: > > > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/grub2/+bug/1844012 > > > Also from Debian on 2023.02.15. > > https://www.mail-archive.com/debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org/msg1895219.html > > Playing with this has been.. fun.. I guess. I found a > "metadata_csum_seed" culprit in /etc/mke2fs(.)conf. It's in the line > for ext4 which is what I use. > > Saw a mention of a patch online. While trying to track that down so > that this is approached in a Linux-defined methodical way, I found > Debian's bugs entry there. Their expressed knowledge of this situation > is why the installer's installation booted on my end a few days ago. > Their mention of debootstrap installs NOT booting for some of us is > exactly what I'm personally experiencing right now. > Cindy, You might want to try with the .iso file from Bookworm Alpha 2 released last night / this morning. And by that I mean a fresh install / a fresh upgrade to testing. I've just installed several machines with it (and spent a bunch of time testing it last night) The ext4 problem there has been fixed now, for example, and was down to a new version of e2fsprogs All the very best, sa ever, Andy Cater > However this works out, thank you, Developers! > > Cindy :) > -- > Talking Rock, Pickens County, Georgia, USA > * gettin' giddy about the next new unstable! * >
Re: FYI: LFS Thread On GRUB non-boots, e2fsprogs, & mke2fs
Found a brand new 2023.02.15 Debian bugs reference for this.. On 2/19/23, Cindy Sue Causey wrote: > Hi.. This is just regurgitating something related to my coincidentally > referencing several years of GRUB non-boots yesterday. The latest on > this Linux From Scratch thread came into my inbox this morning, and it > just sounds like it might help some Users having booting problems > similar to what I've experienced. > > The Linux From Scratch thread is here: > > https://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/sympa/arc/lfs-dev/2023-02/msg00018.html > > Today's entry referenced this from Launchpad from 2019: > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/grub2/+bug/1844012 Also from Debian on 2023.02.15. https://www.mail-archive.com/debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org/msg1895219.html Playing with this has been.. fun.. I guess. I found a "metadata_csum_seed" culprit in /etc/mke2fs(.)conf. It's in the line for ext4 which is what I use. Saw a mention of a patch online. While trying to track that down so that this is approached in a Linux-defined methodical way, I found Debian's bugs entry there. Their expressed knowledge of this situation is why the installer's installation booted on my end a few days ago. Their mention of debootstrap installs NOT booting for some of us is exactly what I'm personally experiencing right now. However this works out, thank you, Developers! Cindy :) -- Talking Rock, Pickens County, Georgia, USA * gettin' giddy about the next new unstable! *
FYI: LFS Thread On GRUB non-boots, e2fsprogs, & mke2fs
Hi.. This is just regurgitating something related to my coincidentally referencing several years of GRUB non-boots yesterday. The latest on this Linux From Scratch thread came into my inbox this morning, and it just sounds like it might help some Users having booting problems similar to what I've experienced. The Linux From Scratch thread is here: https://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/sympa/arc/lfs-dev/2023-02/msg00018.html Today's entry referenced this from Launchpad from 2019: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/grub2/+bug/1844012 The first response says three years. That's about how long I've had horrific issues in attempting to boot via GRUB/GRUB2. My time today will be spent reading what they're saying AGAIN to then try to match it up with my Debian debootstrap. If it eventually makes sense, I'm going to check the same variable, etc, for the various other operating systems' LiveDVDs that have successfully booted up the last few months. An issue like this makes sense with respect to how I duplicated all of Mint's installed GRUB files via Debian's own counterparts a couple days ago... and it still did NOT boot on Debian. I HOPE it turns out to be that one or more of Debian's various GRUB files have a feature toggled on that the successfully booting operating systems have toggled off. That would include that one Debian installer I tried recently, by the way. A lot has happened since then so I've forgotten the minor details. That instance of Debian obviously had to have booted because I encountered some other showstopper issue once it got loaded up. I was working with it off of the partition, not a DVD at the time. I'm back into debootstrap, and I'm not touching installers again... well, unless it somehow ultimately benefits Testing/Unstable's developers. :) See you all out here.. Cindy :) -- Talking Rock, Pickens County, Georgia, USA * gettin' giddy about the next new unstable! *
Re: can't mke2fs hdb, says already mounted, but it isn't
On 12/15/2009 10:15 PM, Timothy Legg wrote: Here is a good puzzler. I got a second ATAPI disk in my machine that I was able to partition with fdisk, but cannot mkfs it. It says that the device is already mounted but when I try to umount it, it says it is not mounted. the blkid command I ran on the device contradicts with what df tells me. You can see the commands and outputs below. I could try booting from a live cd and mkfs the drive, but I am very curious why this is happening. I have never had this happen to me before. Tim Legg engineering:/home/legg# fdisk -l /dev/hdb Disk /dev/hdb: 200.0 GB, 200049647616 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 24321 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Disk identifier: 0x38ef9d17 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/hdb1 1 24321 195358401 83 Linux engineering:/home/legg# mke2fs -j /dev/hdb1 mke2fs 1.41.3 (12-Oct-2008) /dev/hdb1 is mounted; will not make a filesystem here! engineering:/home/legg# umount /dev/hdb1 umount: /dev/hdb1: not mounted engineering:/home/legg# mke2fs -j /dev/hdb1 mke2fs 1.41.3 (12-Oct-2008) /dev/hdb1 is mounted; will not make a filesystem here! engineering:/home/legg# blkid /dev/hdb1 /dev/hdb1: TYPE="swap" engineering:/home/legg# df -h FilesystemSize Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/hda2 14G 3.1G 9.6G 25% / tmpfs 506M 0 506M 0% /lib/init/rw udev 10M 764K 9.3M 8% /dev tmpfs 506M 0 506M 0% /dev/shm /dev/hda3 3.7G 943M 2.6G 27% /home You may have a stale record in /etc/mtab. Make sure /dev/hda1 *really* is not mounted, then remove /dev/hda1 record from /etc/mtab and try mke2fs again. -- David Kubicek -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: can't mke2fs hdb, says already mounted, but it isn't
Interesting result! FilenameTypeSizeUsedPriority /dev/hda1 partition 1951856 48 -1 /dev/hdb1 partition 167798520 -2 I remember a wierd thing happened when I installed debian on my 20Gb disk last week. I manually partitioned the 20GB (hda) drive with it's own swap partition and installed debian onto it. The 200GB (hdb) drive had an installation of debian from a different CPU/architecture. I did not want to touch the device during the installation of debain on /dev/hda. It was funny that when I was done creating the partitions on /dev/hda, the partitioning tool provided a summary of the partitions to be formatted and it included the swap partition on /dev/hdb. I restarted the partitioner two times afterwards to try to find a way of getting debian installed on /dev/hda without touching /dev/hdb, but I gave up once I suspected that it was a bug in the partitioning tool and that it would be impossible to leave the drive untouched without restarting with the drive cable unplugged. I thought, well if it really thinks it wants to format the swap partition, I'll let it, despite it being a waste of device time. What harm would it do? Well, it seems that it used that as one of two swap partitions currently in use. I never imagined the need for having two swap partitions and certainly wouldn't have requested it knowingly. I 'swapoff'ed the /dev/hdb1 and now I am able to mkfs the partition. I think I will unplug extra hardware that isn't essential to the install when I install debian in the future, or at least until the person doing the install is able to have more control over how things are being set up. Issue is solved, Thanks Tim Legg >> Here is a good puzzler. I got a second ATAPI disk in my machine that I >> was able to partition with fdisk, but cannot mkfs it. It says that the >> device is already mounted but when I try to umount it, it says it is not >> mounted. the blkid command I ran on the device contradicts with what df >> tells me. You can see the commands and outputs below. >> >> I could try booting from a live cd and mkfs the drive, but I am very >> curious why this is happening. I have never had this happen to me >> before. >> >> engineering:/home/legg# fdisk -l /dev/hdb >> >> Disk /dev/hdb: 200.0 GB, 200049647616 bytes >> 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 24321 cylinders >> Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes >> Disk identifier: 0x38ef9d17 >> >> Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System >> /dev/hdb1 1 24321 195358401 83 Linux >> >> engineering:/home/legg# mke2fs -j /dev/hdb1 >> mke2fs 1.41.3 (12-Oct-2008) >> /dev/hdb1 is mounted; will not make a filesystem here! >> >> engineering:/home/legg# umount /dev/hdb1 >> umount: /dev/hdb1: not mounted >> >> engineering:/home/legg# mke2fs -j /dev/hdb1 >> mke2fs 1.41.3 (12-Oct-2008) >> /dev/hdb1 is mounted; will not make a filesystem here! >> >> engineering:/home/legg# blkid /dev/hdb1 >> /dev/hdb1: TYPE="swap" >> >> engineering:/home/legg# df -h >> Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on >> /dev/hda2 14G 3.1G 9.6G 25% / >> tmpfs 506M 0 506M 0% /lib/init/rw >> udev 10M 764K 9.3M 8% /dev >> tmpfs 506M 0 506M 0% /dev/shm >> /dev/hda3 3.7G 943M 2.6G 27% /home > > Strange because id 83 isn't swap. > > Check "swapon -s" nonetheless. > > If hdb1 is listed, run "swapoff /dev/hdb1" and re-run mkfs. > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > listmas...@lists.debian.org > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: can't mke2fs hdb, says already mounted, but it isn't
>> Here is a good puzzler. I got a second ATAPI disk in my machine that I >> was able to partition with fdisk, but cannot mkfs it. It says that the >> device is already mounted but when I try to umount it, it says it is not >> mounted. the blkid command I ran on the device contradicts with what df >> tells me. You can see the commands and outputs below. >> >> I could try booting from a live cd and mkfs the drive, but I am very >> curious why this is happening. I have never had this happen to me >> before. >> >> engineering:/home/legg# fdisk -l /dev/hdb >> >> Disk /dev/hdb: 200.0 GB, 200049647616 bytes >> 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 24321 cylinders >> Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes >> Disk identifier: 0x38ef9d17 >> >> Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System >> /dev/hdb1 1 24321 195358401 83 Linux >> >> engineering:/home/legg# mke2fs -j /dev/hdb1 >> mke2fs 1.41.3 (12-Oct-2008) >> /dev/hdb1 is mounted; will not make a filesystem here! >> >> engineering:/home/legg# umount /dev/hdb1 >> umount: /dev/hdb1: not mounted >> >> engineering:/home/legg# mke2fs -j /dev/hdb1 >> mke2fs 1.41.3 (12-Oct-2008) >> /dev/hdb1 is mounted; will not make a filesystem here! >> >> engineering:/home/legg# blkid /dev/hdb1 >> /dev/hdb1: TYPE="swap" >> >> engineering:/home/legg# df -h >> Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on >> /dev/hda2 14G 3.1G 9.6G 25% / >> tmpfs 506M 0 506M 0% /lib/init/rw >> udev 10M 764K 9.3M 8% /dev >> tmpfs 506M 0 506M 0% /dev/shm >> /dev/hda3 3.7G 943M 2.6G 27% /home > > Strange because id 83 isn't swap. > > Check "swapon -s" nonetheless. > > If hdb1 is listed, run "swapoff /dev/hdb1" and re-run mkfs. > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > listmas...@lists.debian.org > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: can't mke2fs hdb, says already mounted, but it isn't
Tom H wrote: >> Here is a good puzzler. I got a second ATAPI disk in my machine that I >> was able to partition with fdisk, but cannot mkfs it. It says that the >> device is already mounted but when I try to umount it, it says it is not >> mounted. the blkid command I ran on the device contradicts with what df >> tells me. You can see the commands and outputs below. --deleted commands and output-- > > Strange because id 83 isn't swap. > > Check "swapon -s" nonetheless. > > If hdb1 is listed, run "swapoff /dev/hdb1" and re-run mkfs. > It sounds like there was something on the disk prior to your repartitioning, that just happens to be at the partition boundary you created. Once you're sure the system isn't really using this as swap, you could try writing null characters to it to destroy whatever signature is causing the problem: dd if=/dev/zero of=dev/hdb1 bs=1024 count=10 I just chose some arbitrary values for block size and count, probably bigger than needed, but not harmful either. Then try the mke2fs again. If you want to start over completely, you could try the same command but with of=/dev/hdb (the whole disk), which will destroy partition information as well as any partition signature. -- Bob McGowan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: can't mke2fs hdb, says already mounted, but it isn't
> Here is a good puzzler. I got a second ATAPI disk in my machine that I > was able to partition with fdisk, but cannot mkfs it. It says that the > device is already mounted but when I try to umount it, it says it is not > mounted. the blkid command I ran on the device contradicts with what df > tells me. You can see the commands and outputs below. > > I could try booting from a live cd and mkfs the drive, but I am very > curious why this is happening. I have never had this happen to me before. > > engineering:/home/legg# fdisk -l /dev/hdb > > Disk /dev/hdb: 200.0 GB, 200049647616 bytes > 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 24321 cylinders > Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes > Disk identifier: 0x38ef9d17 > > Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System > /dev/hdb1 1 24321 195358401 83 Linux > > engineering:/home/legg# mke2fs -j /dev/hdb1 > mke2fs 1.41.3 (12-Oct-2008) > /dev/hdb1 is mounted; will not make a filesystem here! > > engineering:/home/legg# umount /dev/hdb1 > umount: /dev/hdb1: not mounted > > engineering:/home/legg# mke2fs -j /dev/hdb1 > mke2fs 1.41.3 (12-Oct-2008) > /dev/hdb1 is mounted; will not make a filesystem here! > > engineering:/home/legg# blkid /dev/hdb1 > /dev/hdb1: TYPE="swap" > > engineering:/home/legg# df -h > Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on > /dev/hda2 14G 3.1G 9.6G 25% / > tmpfs 506M 0 506M 0% /lib/init/rw > udev 10M 764K 9.3M 8% /dev > tmpfs 506M 0 506M 0% /dev/shm > /dev/hda3 3.7G 943M 2.6G 27% /home Strange because id 83 isn't swap. Check "swapon -s" nonetheless. If hdb1 is listed, run "swapoff /dev/hdb1" and re-run mkfs. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
can't mke2fs hdb, says already mounted, but it isn't
Here is a good puzzler. I got a second ATAPI disk in my machine that I was able to partition with fdisk, but cannot mkfs it. It says that the device is already mounted but when I try to umount it, it says it is not mounted. the blkid command I ran on the device contradicts with what df tells me. You can see the commands and outputs below. I could try booting from a live cd and mkfs the drive, but I am very curious why this is happening. I have never had this happen to me before. Tim Legg engineering:/home/legg# fdisk -l /dev/hdb Disk /dev/hdb: 200.0 GB, 200049647616 bytes 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 24321 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes Disk identifier: 0x38ef9d17 Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/hdb1 1 24321 195358401 83 Linux engineering:/home/legg# mke2fs -j /dev/hdb1 mke2fs 1.41.3 (12-Oct-2008) /dev/hdb1 is mounted; will not make a filesystem here! engineering:/home/legg# umount /dev/hdb1 umount: /dev/hdb1: not mounted engineering:/home/legg# mke2fs -j /dev/hdb1 mke2fs 1.41.3 (12-Oct-2008) /dev/hdb1 is mounted; will not make a filesystem here! engineering:/home/legg# blkid /dev/hdb1 /dev/hdb1: TYPE="swap" engineering:/home/legg# df -h FilesystemSize Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/hda2 14G 3.1G 9.6G 25% / tmpfs 506M 0 506M 0% /lib/init/rw udev 10M 764K 9.3M 8% /dev tmpfs 506M 0 506M 0% /dev/shm /dev/hda3 3.7G 943M 2.6G 27% /home -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: mke2fs checking bad blocks
On 2009-08-09 04:51, hce wrote: Hi, I have beening running following command to check an external USB 1 TB disk for more than 15 hours. I am not clear if the right corner of 244190007 is the maxinum blocks it should check or not. If it is, it seems that it has already exceeded the total blocks, but it is still running. What should I do, just quit it? ~$ /sbin/mke2fs -c /dev/sda1 sda??? Is your boot disk hda? Is it plugged into a USB 1.1 port? Also, I wouldn't be surprised if "check bad blocks" weren't inordinately slow even on internal disks. mke2fs 1.40-WIP (14-Nov-2006) Filesystem label= OS type: Linux Block size=4096 (log=2) Fragment size=4096 (log=2) 122109952 inodes, 244190008 blocks 12209500 blocks (5.00%) reserved for the super user First data block=0 Maximum filesystem blocks=0 7453 block groups 32768 blocks per group, 32768 fragments per group 16384 inodes per group Superblock backups stored on blocks: 32768, 98304, 163840, 229376, 294912, 819200, 884736, 1605632, 2654208, 4096000, 7962624, 11239424, 2048, 23887872, 71663616, 78675968, 10240, 214990848 Checking for bad blocks (read-only test):25582272/ 244190007 Thank you. Kind Regards, Jupiter -- Scooty Puff, Sr The Doom-Bringer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: mke2fs checking bad blocks
On 2009-08-09 05:25, hce wrote: Thanks Sven. Will it be any problem if I quit it by pressing Ctr-c? If I understand it correctly, the mke2fs -c is only check the bad block, not write or format the disk, right? No problem. -- Scooty Puff, Sr The Doom-Bringer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: mke2fs checking bad blocks
Thanks Sven. Will it be any problem if I quit it by pressing Ctr-c? If I understand it correctly, the mke2fs -c is only check the bad block, not write or format the disk, right? By the way, it has not reached the maximum blocks yet, but it seems it need to run another 3 days to finishe it. I cannot level my machine on so long. Thanks. Jupiter On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Sven Joachim wrote: > On 2009-08-09 11:51 +0200, hce wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I have beening running following command to check an external USB 1 TB >> disk for more than 15 hours. I am not clear if the right corner of >> 244190007 is the maxinum blocks it should check or not. If it is, it >> seems that it has already exceeded the total blocks, but it is still >> running. What should I do, just quit it? >> >> ~$ /sbin/mke2fs -c /dev/sda1 >> mke2fs 1.40-WIP (14-Nov-2006) > > This is an old version, and it may be that you hit bug #411838¹ or some > other problem that has been fixed in the meantime. I would definitely > try a newer version on such a big filesystem. > >> Filesystem label= >> OS type: Linux >> Block size=4096 (log=2) >> Fragment size=4096 (log=2) >> 122109952 inodes, 244190008 blocks > > This indicates that the right boundary of 244190007 is at least close. > > Sven > > > ¹ http://bugs.debian.org/411838 > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: mke2fs checking bad blocks
On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 19:51 +1000, hce wrote: > Hi, > > I have beening running following command to check an external USB 1 TB > disk for more than 15 hours. I am not clear if the right corner of > 244190007 is the maxinum blocks it should check or not. If it is, it > seems that it has already exceeded the total blocks, but it is still > running. What should I do, just quit it? > > ~$ /sbin/mke2fs -c /dev/sda1 > mke2fs 1.40-WIP (14-Nov-2006) > Filesystem label= > OS type: Linux > Block size=4096 (log=2) > Fragment size=4096 (log=2) > 122109952 inodes, 244190008 blocks > 12209500 blocks (5.00%) reserved for the super user > First data block=0 > Maximum filesystem blocks=0 > 7453 block groups > 32768 blocks per group, 32768 fragments per group > 16384 inodes per group > Superblock backups stored on blocks: > 32768, 98304, 163840, 229376, 294912, 819200, 884736, 1605632, > 2654208, > 4096000, 7962624, 11239424, 2048, 23887872, 71663616, 78675968, > 10240, 214990848 > > Checking for bad blocks (read-only test):25582272/ 244190007 Assuming bad blocks are checked sequentially it seems you have to be prepared to wait a little longer :) 25582272 / 244190008. = 0.104763795 Kind Regards, Siggy > Jupiter Sorry, just can't resist: quod licet bovi non licet jovi :) -- Please don't Cc: me when replying, I might not see either copy. bsb-at-psycho-dot-informationsanarchistik-dot-de or:bsb-at-psycho-dot-i21k-dot-de O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: mke2fs checking bad blocks
On 2009-08-09 11:51 +0200, hce wrote: > Hi, > > I have beening running following command to check an external USB 1 TB > disk for more than 15 hours. I am not clear if the right corner of > 244190007 is the maxinum blocks it should check or not. If it is, it > seems that it has already exceeded the total blocks, but it is still > running. What should I do, just quit it? > > ~$ /sbin/mke2fs -c /dev/sda1 > mke2fs 1.40-WIP (14-Nov-2006) This is an old version, and it may be that you hit bug #411838¹ or some other problem that has been fixed in the meantime. I would definitely try a newer version on such a big filesystem. > Filesystem label= > OS type: Linux > Block size=4096 (log=2) > Fragment size=4096 (log=2) > 122109952 inodes, 244190008 blocks This indicates that the right boundary of 244190007 is at least close. Sven ¹ http://bugs.debian.org/411838 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
mke2fs checking bad blocks
Hi, I have beening running following command to check an external USB 1 TB disk for more than 15 hours. I am not clear if the right corner of 244190007 is the maxinum blocks it should check or not. If it is, it seems that it has already exceeded the total blocks, but it is still running. What should I do, just quit it? ~$ /sbin/mke2fs -c /dev/sda1 mke2fs 1.40-WIP (14-Nov-2006) Filesystem label= OS type: Linux Block size=4096 (log=2) Fragment size=4096 (log=2) 122109952 inodes, 244190008 blocks 12209500 blocks (5.00%) reserved for the super user First data block=0 Maximum filesystem blocks=0 7453 block groups 32768 blocks per group, 32768 fragments per group 16384 inodes per group Superblock backups stored on blocks: 32768, 98304, 163840, 229376, 294912, 819200, 884736, 1605632, 2654208, 4096000, 7962624, 11239424, 2048, 23887872, 71663616, 78675968, 10240, 214990848 Checking for bad blocks (read-only test):25582272/ 244190007 Thank you. Kind Regards, Jupiter -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Formating a big partition with mke2fs
hi I tried to format a 40GB partition with mke2fs. I typed: mke2fs -b 4096 -i 4096 After writing 135 of 12215 (or similar) tables the programm processes very slow and was not finished after one hour formating... after one hour it was on the 145 table. Where is the problem here? Since now i never had problems foramtting a partition and it went very quick each time. cheers, Raffaele -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cfdisk, fdisk, and mke2fs: "file size limit exceeded"
I'm trying to replace a pair of 30G drives in a RAID0 configuration with a pair of 60s so I'll be able to do RAID1 instead. However, I keep getting "file size limit exceeded" errors whenever I: - Try to write a configuration with more than 2 logical partitions using cfdisk or fdisk (although the partition sizes don't matter, only the number of partitions). - Try to format a large partition (2G is OK, 20G is not) using mke2fs. A google search turned up a couple of mailing list posts suggesting that this is a kernel bug which was fixed in an -ac patch at some point, then reintroduced in 2.4.10; the machine I'm working with has displayed this bug with 2.4.16 and 2.4.17 kernels, both built from Debian's kernel-source packages. I tried a 2.2.19 also, but that wouldn't boot due to incompatible RAID implementations. Is there a patch currently out there to fix this? If not, what's the next step towards getting this system up and running with the new disks? -- When we reduce our own liberties to stop terrorism, the terrorists have already won. - reverius Innocence is no protection when governments go bad. - Tom Swiss
Re: mke2fs default mmc
On 26-Nov 09:16, Sean Middleditch wrote: > Hi! > > I was wondering what is used to detemine the maximum mount count in > mke2fs. I am told the default should be 20, but I've got (when > reformatting the same partition) a result of 24 and results of 31. Why > is this? iirc, mke2fs tries to make the maximum mount count be random, so as to stagger forced fscks of the filesystems. (Who wants to wait for _every_ filesystem to fsck every 20'th kernel you just built. :) Thomas pgpLvGjmZskWE.pgp Description: PGP signature
mke2fs default mmc
Hi! I was wondering what is used to detemine the maximum mount count in mke2fs. I am told the default should be 20, but I've got (when reformatting the same partition) a result of 24 and results of 31. Why is this? Thanks! Sean Etc.
Re: mke2fs: invalid arg to ext2 library ?
On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 03:21:24PM -0600, will trillich wrote: > Invalid argument passed to ext2 library while setting up superblock > > --i didn't get any response before, so i'm trying a different > --subject line. if this is the wrong place to ask, pliz direct > --me to the right one... > > i tried the potato mke2fs on /dev/hda9 hda10 hda11, but only one > of the three worked -- the other two bombed out with 'Invalid > argument passed to ext2 library while setting up superblock' ?? I recently had a similar problem. I my case it was /dev/hda4 (on a 10GB IBM), so I'm not sure whether it really has something to do with your "2-digit" partition numbers... I fiddled around for a while, then finally gave up -- it was on one of my machines which I don't use regularly, and I could live without the partition at that time... Then, after having seen your initial post yesterday, I thought I might look into that issue again, and do some low-level debugging. So I booted the machine, tried the mke2fs again and, to my surprise, it magically worked right away... Don't really know, why it worked now, maybe it had to do with the partition table having been reread (though I did also reboot the machine the first time), or maybe some hidden bug in mke2fs, like uninitialized variables or such. Currently I can't reproduce the problem, so there's no way for me to find out... I guess you've probably already tried rebooting, have you? Erdmut -- Erdmut Pfeifer science+computing gmbh -- Bugs come in through open windows. Keep Windows shut! --
Re: mke2fs: invalid arg to ext2 library ?
will trillich wrote: > > Invalid argument passed to ext2 library while setting up superblock > > --i didn't get any response before, so i'm trying a different > --subject line. if this is the wrong place to ask, pliz direct > --me to the right one... i saw the last post but since noone has replied i will. i had the same problem recently when i installed 2 40.1GB drives in the same system. what i did was re-fdisk the partitions, re write the partition tables and re format, it was fine after..and fine ever since...not sure what caused it. nate -- ::: ICQ: 75132336 http://www.aphroland.org/ http://www.linuxpowered.net/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mke2fs: invalid arg to ext2 library ?
Invalid argument passed to ext2 library while setting up superblock --i didn't get any response before, so i'm trying a different --subject line. if this is the wrong place to ask, pliz direct --me to the right one... i tried the potato mke2fs on /dev/hda9 hda10 hda11, but only one of the three worked -- the other two bombed out with 'Invalid argument passed to ext2 library while setting up superblock' ?? this is after CFDISK with partition type 83 for all partitions involved (82 is swap, 85 is linux extended but that partition type is silently ignored by cfdisk). here's the results of my three 'mkfs' attempts: # mkfs.ext2 /dev/hda9 mke2fs 1.18, 11-Nov-1999 for EXT2 FS 0.5b, 95/08/09 Filesystem label= OS type: Linux Block size=4096 (log=2) Fragment size=4096 (log=2) 1982464 inodes, 3964030 blocks 198201 blocks (5.00%) reserved for the super user First data block=0 121 block groups 32768 blocks per group, 32768 fragments per group 16384 inodes per group Superblock backups stored on blocks: 32768, 98304, 163840, 229376, 294912, 819200, 884736, 1605632, 2654208 [snip] Writing superblocks and filesystem accounting information: done ** /dev/hda9 works like a charm. hda10 and hda11 DO NOT! # mkfs.ext2 /dev/hda10 mke2fs 1.18, 11-Nov-1999 for EXT2 FS 0.5b, 95/08/09 /dev/hda10: Invalid argument passed to ext2 library while setting up superblock # mke2fs /dev/hda11 mke2fs 1.18, 11-Nov-1999 for EXT2 FS 0.5b, 95/08/09 /dev/hda11: Invalid argument passed to ext2 library while setting up superblock ** mke2fs and mkfs.ext2 seem to be identical, but i tried ** them both just in case... # fdisk -l Disk /dev/hda: 255 heads, 63 sectors, 3739 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 bytes Device BootStart EndBlocks Id System /dev/hda1 130240943+ 83 Linux /dev/hda2 *3133 24097+ 83 Linux /dev/hda33463240975 82 Linux swap /dev/hda464 3739 295274705 Extended /dev/hda564 367 2441848+ 83 Linux /dev/hda6 368 549 1461883+ 83 Linux /dev/hda7 550 1157 4883728+ 83 Linux /dev/hda8 1158 1765 4883728+ 83 Linux /dev/hda9 1766 2130 2931831 83 Linux /dev/hda10 2131 2495 2931831 83 Linux /dev/hda11 2496 3739 9992398+ 83 Linux any RTFM pointers would be welcome. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]***http://www.dontUthink.com/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/newbieDoc -- next week's newbie needs your brain: document your experience today!
problem setting up superblock / mke2fs
i'm having trouble with potato MKFS on 2-digit logical partitions on my HDA drive. i ran CFDISK to create hda[9,10,11] identically. 9 is fine, but 10 and 11 just snurl up their noses. any ideas? (i tried partition type 85, which is ignored; so i fell back to 82 instead.) # mkfs.ext2 /dev/hda10 mke2fs 1.18, 11-Nov-1999 for EXT2 FS 0.5b, 95/08/09 /dev/hda10: Invalid argument passed to ext2 library while setting up superblock # mke2fs /dev/hda11 mke2fs 1.18, 11-Nov-1999 for EXT2 FS 0.5b, 95/08/09 /dev/hda11: Invalid argument passed to ext2 library while setting up superblock # mkfs.ext2 /dev/hda9 mke2fs 1.18, 11-Nov-1999 for EXT2 FS 0.5b, 95/08/09 Filesystem label= OS type: Linux Block size=4096 (log=2) Fragment size=4096 (log=2) 1982464 inodes, 3964030 blocks 198201 blocks (5.00%) reserved for the super user First data block=0 121 block groups 32768 blocks per group, 32768 fragments per group 16384 inodes per group Superblock backups stored on blocks: 32768, 98304, 163840, 229376, 294912, 819200, 884736, 1605632, 2654208 [snip] Writing superblocks and filesystem accounting information: done # fdisk -l Disk /dev/hda: 255 heads, 63 sectors, 3739 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 bytes Device BootStart EndBlocks Id System /dev/hda1 130240943+ 83 Linux /dev/hda2 *3133 24097+ 83 Linux /dev/hda33463240975 82 Linux swap /dev/hda464 3739 295274705 Extended /dev/hda564 367 2441848+ 83 Linux /dev/hda6 368 549 1461883+ 83 Linux /dev/hda7 550 1157 4883728+ 83 Linux /dev/hda8 1158 1765 4883728+ 83 Linux /dev/hda9 1766 2130 2931831 83 Linux /dev/hda10 2131 2495 2931831 83 Linux /dev/hda11 2496 3739 9992398+ 83 Linux i'm trying to set up partitions for oracle 8i... what incantation have i missed? -- It is always hazardous to ask "Why?" in science, but it is often interesting to do so just the same. -- Isaac Asimov, 'The Genetic Code' [EMAIL PROTECTED]***http://www.dontUthink.com/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/newbieDoc -- next week's newbie needs your brain: document your experience today!
mke2fs: error in loading shared libraries
Why does 'mke2fs /dev/fd0' give mke2fs 1.18, 11-Nov-1999 for EXT2 FS 0.5b, 95/08/09 mke2fs: error in loading shared libraries: mke2fs: undefined symbol: e2p_edit_feature ? I've done a dist-upgrade but no juice. -chris
Re: /etc/mtab wiped clean after mke2fs is run
On Wed, Jul 05, 2000 at 01:57:08PM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > This is weird. > > On potato, running mke2fs wipes out the existing /etc/mtab file > (it's zero size) such that `df' and `mount' have no record of any > mounted filesystems. > > Anyone else seen this? No. You can copy /proc/mounts to /etc/mtab to restore the data. It's possible to create a symlink from /proc/mounts to /etc/mtab, but certain filesystems, eg: loopback and RAM, IIRC, don't get freed properly if this is the case. -- Karsten M. Self http://www.netcom.com/~kmself Evangelist, Opensales, Inc.http://www.opensales.org What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Debian GNU/Linux rocks! http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/K5: http://www.kuro5hin.org GPG fingerprint: F932 8B25 5FDD 2528 D595 DC61 3847 889F 55F2 B9B0 pgpRVp7E4fAix.pgp Description: PGP signature
/etc/mtab wiped clean after mke2fs is run
This is weird. On potato, running mke2fs wipes out the existing /etc/mtab file (it's zero size) such that `df' and `mount' have no record of any mounted filesystems. Anyone else seen this? I use e.g. mke2fs -m 0 -i 16384 /dev/hda3 -- Peter Galbraith, research scientist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Maurice Lamontagne Institute, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada P.O. Box 1000, Mont-Joli Qc, G5H 3Z4 Canada. 418-775-0852 FAX: 775-0546 6623'rd GNU/Linux user at the Counter - http://counter.li.org/
strange mke2fs problem - SOLVED
Hi, All thanks for all the advices indeed, it was "sparse superblock" feature which prevents partition mounting with slink rescue. thank you OK
Re: strange mke2fs problem
Oleg Krivosheev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > Hi, All > > found strange problem with mke2fs on potato: > > 1. set new 20gig disk as /dev/hdb and created 2gig linux partition as >/dev/hdb1 > > 2. running potato with kernel 2.2.14 on /dev/hda > > 3. run mke2fs on /dev/hdb1 "mke2fs -c -m 0 /dev/hdb1" and it finished ok > > 4. was able to mount /dev/hdb1 on /mnt and copy files to adn from it > > 5. rebooted with debian 2.1 (slink) rescue disk "rescue root=/dev/hda1" >AND WAS UNABLE TO MOUNT /dev/hdb1 ! mount printed something like > >"Unable to mount:bad fs superblock, bad mount options or already > mounted" > > 6. ok, rebooted again with rescue floppy, go to "Execute shell" and >run mke2fs on /dev/hdb1 from floppy. All went ok and now i'm able to >mount /dev/hdb1 while booting from disk and from rescue. > > Looks like mke2fs/mount/ext2 incompatible changed while > moving from slink to potato (or from kernel 2.0 to kernel 2.2). > > Is there known bug(s)? Should i report it to kernel folks? > > any ideas/help are greatly appreciated > > OK > > > -- > Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null The version of mke2fs in potato makes filesystems with the `sparse superblock option' by default. 2.0 kernels can't read filesystems made with this option. According to the manpage, there are options to not use the sparse superblock option. I tried the -s option unsuccessfully, but I didn't try the -O option. Bob -- _ |_) _ |_ Robert D. Hilliard<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |_) (_) |_) Palm City, FL USAPGP Key ID: A8E40EB9
strange mke2fs problem
Hi, All found strange problem with mke2fs on potato: 1. set new 20gig disk as /dev/hdb and created 2gig linux partition as /dev/hdb1 2. running potato with kernel 2.2.14 on /dev/hda 3. run mke2fs on /dev/hdb1 "mke2fs -c -m 0 /dev/hdb1" and it finished ok 4. was able to mount /dev/hdb1 on /mnt and copy files to adn from it 5. rebooted with debian 2.1 (slink) rescue disk "rescue root=/dev/hda1" AND WAS UNABLE TO MOUNT /dev/hdb1 ! mount printed something like "Unable to mount:bad fs superblock, bad mount options or already mounted" 6. ok, rebooted again with rescue floppy, go to "Execute shell" and run mke2fs on /dev/hdb1 from floppy. All went ok and now i'm able to mount /dev/hdb1 while booting from disk and from rescue. Looks like mke2fs/mount/ext2 incompatible changed while moving from slink to potato (or from kernel 2.0 to kernel 2.2). Is there known bug(s)? Should i report it to kernel folks? any ideas/help are greatly appreciated OK
mke2fs -c /dev/hda8 fails!
I'm trying to move around partitions on my system. I have four primary partitions -- one is extended. Here's the fdisk output: calico:~# fdisk -l /dev/hda Disk /dev/hda: 255 heads, 63 sectors, 1247 cylinders Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 bytes Device BootStart EndBlocks Id System /dev/hda1 * 1 500 4016249+ 83 Linux /dev/hda2 501 516128520 82 Linux swap /dev/hda3 * 517 523 56227+ 83 Linux /dev/hda4 524 1247 58155305 Extended /dev/hda5 524 778 2048256 83 Linux /dev/hda6 779 804208813+ 83 Linux /dev/hda7 805 932 1028128+ 83 Linux /dev/hda8 933 1024738958+ 83 Linux /dev/hda9 1025 1247 1791216 83 Linux When I get to mke2fs -c /dev/hda8, I get the following error. mke2fs 1.18, 11-Nov-1999 for EXT2 FS 0.5b, 95/08/09 /dev/hda8: Invalid argument passed to ext2 library while setting up superblock So how do I get filesystems on /dev/hda8 and /dev/hda9? -- ++ | Eric G. Milleregm2@jps.net | | GnuPG public key: http://www.jps.net/egm2/gpg.asc | ++
Re: mke2fs - bad blocks
>> I suspect the drive is toast, but thought I would check first. Does >> anyone know if a low level format or something else can save this, or is it >> just garbage ? Generally one bad block will come many, sooner or later. It is a defect on the surface of the disk. However modern harddisks have some part of their capacity hidden and it is used to map the bad blocks away. If the beginning of the disk has many bad blocks, then you most propably are out of luck. --j -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null
Re: mke2fs - bad blocks
Many vendors supply low-level format utilities which run under DOS. These programs are able to mark the bad blocks at a very low level so you can use the disk. Check out the disk manufacturer's website. Alternatively, create a small partition over the first couple blocks and start your real partition after that. G. Crimp wrote: > Hi, > I got a small used disk given to me that I am trying to put into a > small system I have. When I tried to run mke2fs on any of the partitions I > had created I get > > > Checking fro bad blocks (read-only test): Bad block 0 out of range;ignored. > done > Block 1 in primary superblock/group descriptor area bad. > Blocks 1 through 3 must be good in order to build a filesystem. > Aborting > > > Similarly, mkswap gives: > > --- > 4120 bad pages > mkswap: fatal: first page unreadable > --- > > I suspect the drive is toast, but thought I would check first. Does > anyone know if a low level format or something else can save this, or is it > just garbage ? > > Thanks, > > Gerald Crimp > > -- > Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null -- Jens B. Jorgensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null
mke2fs - bad blocks
Hi, I got a small used disk given to me that I am trying to put into a small system I have. When I tried to run mke2fs on any of the partitions I had created I get Checking fro bad blocks (read-only test): Bad block 0 out of range;ignored. done Block 1 in primary superblock/group descriptor area bad. Blocks 1 through 3 must be good in order to build a filesystem. Aborting Similarly, mkswap gives: --- 4120 bad pages mkswap: fatal: first page unreadable --- I suspect the drive is toast, but thought I would check first. Does anyone know if a low level format or something else can save this, or is it just garbage ? Thanks, Gerald Crimp -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null
mke2fs
Hi, I've got a IBM PS/2 and tere were some problems with the harddik. I got round this by creating the partions by hand. But I've got a problem: If have to use mke2fs to install a file system and I know what to write for parameters. (I'm a very unexperienced user) Thanks, Nils Sandmann -- PGP Fingerprint: F83C 3C08 B225 8D13 0C4B 6232 1094 530B F7F6 F4F3 -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: mke2fs & capacity (where did it go!?)
matthew tebbens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Here is what 'df' says about the drives: > > > Filesystem 1024-blocks Used Available Capacity Mounted on > > > /dev/hdb1 705433 485054 183942 73% / > > > /dev/sda14253289 509553 3523648 13% /var/sda1 > > > /dev/sdb14253289 13 4033188 0% /var/sdb1 > > > /dev/sdc14253289 13 4033188 0% /var/sdc1 > > > /dev/sdd14253289 13 4033188 0% /var/sdd1 > > > > > > This says I have 4,033,188 to play with plus 220,088 for reserved. > > > Now, if I add those together I get 4,253,276. > > > This is not even close to the stated formatted capacity of 4.51gigs. > > > > > > What am I missing here ?? > > > > 4,033,188 + 220,088 + 13 = 4,253,289 so that's all right then. > > But that's not what's at issue. > > What's relevant is the 4,401,778 blocks which becomes 4,507,420,672 bytes. > > That looks better. But even that is only looking at the first partition > > (sda1, sdb1 etc.) > > But I don't have 4,401,778 blocks, I only have a total of 4,253,289 blocks > which becomes aprox 4,355,367,000 bytes. > > How does it get from 4,401,778 blocks to 4,253,289 blocks ? > Somewhere along the line I lost about 250,000 blocks... ?? There are also the superblocks and inodes, and probably other overhead. The default ext2 fs uses 1 inode for 3KB, and it looks like inodes are probably 128 bytes. I figure that at about 190 MB for a 4.5GB disk for inodes alone. -- Carl Johnson[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: mke2fs & capacity (where did it go!?)
Hmmm interesting ! Thanks. On Mon, 15 Dec 1997, David Wright wrote: > On Mon, 15 Dec 1997, matthew tebbens wrote: > > > On Mon, 15 Dec 1997, David Wright wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 14 Dec 1997, matthew tebbens wrote: > > > > > > > (victor)[root:~#] mke2fs -c -v /dev/sda1 > > > > mke2fs 1.10, 24-Apr-97 for EXT2 FS 0.5b, 95/08/09 > > > > Linux ext2 filesystem format > > > > Filesystem label= > > > > 1101824 inodes, 4401778 blocks > > > > 220088 blocks (5.00%) reserved for the super user > > > > First data block=1 > > > > Block size=1024 (log=0) > > > > Fragment size=1024 (log=0) > > > > 538 block groups > > > > 8192 blocks per group, 8192 fragments per group > > > > 2048 inodes per group > > > > Superblock backups stored on blocks: > [...] > > > > What am I missing here ?? > > > > > > 4,033,188 + 220,088 + 13 = 4,253,289 so that's all right then. > > > But that's not what's at issue. > > > What's relevant is the 4,401,778 blocks which becomes 4,507,420,672 bytes. > > > That looks better. But even that is only looking at the first partition > > > (sda1, sdb1 etc.) > > > > But I don't have 4,401,778 blocks, I only have a total of 4,253,289 blocks > > which becomes aprox 4,355,367,000 bytes. > > > > How does it get from 4,401,778 blocks to 4,253,289 blocks ? > > Somewhere along the line I lost about 250,000 blocks... ?? > > The partition has 4,401,778 blocks in total. There are 4,253,289 blocks > available for your data. Somewhere, the filesystem has to describe where > all that data is. > > Your filesystem has 1,101,824 inodes and, taking a quick look at > /usr/src/linux/include/linux/ext2_fs_i.h which describes inodes in > memory, there seem to be about 112 bytes in an inode. That adds up to > about half your "missing" space. But there's more to describing the > filesystem than just the inodes, and ext2 is optimised for performance, > which must mean using more space for chains of descriptors etc.. Perhaps you > should read a book on linux internals to find out what you're missing. > (Sorry for the pun.) > > -- > David Wright, Open University, Earth Science Department, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA > U.K. email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel: +44 1908 653 739 fax: +44 1908 655 151 > > -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: mke2fs & capacity (where did it go!?)
On Mon, 15 Dec 1997, matthew tebbens wrote: > On Mon, 15 Dec 1997, David Wright wrote: > > > On Sun, 14 Dec 1997, matthew tebbens wrote: > > > > > (victor)[root:~#] mke2fs -c -v /dev/sda1 > > > mke2fs 1.10, 24-Apr-97 for EXT2 FS 0.5b, 95/08/09 > > > Linux ext2 filesystem format > > > Filesystem label= > > > 1101824 inodes, 4401778 blocks > > > 220088 blocks (5.00%) reserved for the super user > > > First data block=1 > > > Block size=1024 (log=0) > > > Fragment size=1024 (log=0) > > > 538 block groups > > > 8192 blocks per group, 8192 fragments per group > > > 2048 inodes per group > > > Superblock backups stored on blocks: [...] > > > What am I missing here ?? > > > > 4,033,188 + 220,088 + 13 = 4,253,289 so that's all right then. > > But that's not what's at issue. > > What's relevant is the 4,401,778 blocks which becomes 4,507,420,672 bytes. > > That looks better. But even that is only looking at the first partition > > (sda1, sdb1 etc.) > > But I don't have 4,401,778 blocks, I only have a total of 4,253,289 blocks > which becomes aprox 4,355,367,000 bytes. > > How does it get from 4,401,778 blocks to 4,253,289 blocks ? > Somewhere along the line I lost about 250,000 blocks... ?? The partition has 4,401,778 blocks in total. There are 4,253,289 blocks available for your data. Somewhere, the filesystem has to describe where all that data is. Your filesystem has 1,101,824 inodes and, taking a quick look at /usr/src/linux/include/linux/ext2_fs_i.h which describes inodes in memory, there seem to be about 112 bytes in an inode. That adds up to about half your "missing" space. But there's more to describing the filesystem than just the inodes, and ext2 is optimised for performance, which must mean using more space for chains of descriptors etc.. Perhaps you should read a book on linux internals to find out what you're missing. (Sorry for the pun.) -- David Wright, Open University, Earth Science Department, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA U.K. email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel: +44 1908 653 739 fax: +44 1908 655 151 -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: mke2fs & capacity (where did it go!?)
1101824 inodes, 4401778 blocks 220088 blocks (5.00%) reserved for the super user /dev/sda14253289 13 4033188 0% /var/sdb1 /dev/sdb14253289 13 4033188 0% /var/sdb1 /dev/sdc14253289 13 4033188 0% /var/sdc1 /dev/sdd14253289 13 4033188 0% /var/sdd1 The 220,088 reserved blocks are added to 4,033,188 to give me 4,253,289. How do you get from 4,253,289 to 4,401,778 ? 4,401,778 minus 4,253,289 leaves 148,489 missing blocks...? I'm assumeing that everything is support to add up to 4,401,778 blocks.. Matthew On Mon, 15 Dec 1997, Tim Sailer wrote: > matthew tebbens wrote: > > > > > > Thats over 250megs of tables and internal structures ? > > > > Wow... > > There is also 5% reserved for root, unless you specified otherwise > > Tim > > -- > (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] / (home) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - > http://www.buoy.com/~tps >"The squeaky wheel gets the grease, > but gets changed at the next opportunity if it squeaks habitually." > ** Disclaimer: My views/comments/beliefs, as strange as they are, are my > own.** > -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: mke2fs & capacity (where did it go!?)
> Thats over 250megs of tables and internal structures ?
>
> Wow...
Not only. I don't remeber whether it was already mentioned but by default
5% of the filesystem is "reserved" for the super-user. You may override
this default with -m option to mk2efs.
Alex Y.
>
>
> On Mon, 15 Dec 1997, Scott Ellis wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 15 Dec 1997, matthew tebbens wrote:
> >
> > > But I don't have 4,401,778 blocks, I only have a total of 4,253,289 blocks
> > > which becomes aprox 4,355,367,000 bytes.
> > >
> > > How does it get from 4,401,778 blocks to 4,253,289 blocks ?
> > > Somewhere along the line I lost about 250,000 blocks... ??
> >
> > You neglected to account for the inode tables and other internal
> > filesystem structures that take up space in the filesystem.
> >
> > --
> > Scott K. Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > http://www.gate.net/~storm/
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
> Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
>
>
>
--
_
_( )_
( (o___ +---+
| _ 7 |Alexander Yukhimets|
\(")| http://pages.nyu.edu/~aqy6633/ |
/ \ \ +---+
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: mke2fs & capacity (where did it go!?)
matthew tebbens wrote: > > > Thats over 250megs of tables and internal structures ? > > Wow... There is also 5% reserved for root, unless you specified otherwise Tim -- (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] / (home) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.buoy.com/~tps "The squeaky wheel gets the grease, but gets changed at the next opportunity if it squeaks habitually." ** Disclaimer: My views/comments/beliefs, as strange as they are, are my own.** -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: mke2fs & capacity (where did it go!?)
Thats over 250megs of tables and internal structures ? Wow... On Mon, 15 Dec 1997, Scott Ellis wrote: > On Mon, 15 Dec 1997, matthew tebbens wrote: > > > But I don't have 4,401,778 blocks, I only have a total of 4,253,289 blocks > > which becomes aprox 4,355,367,000 bytes. > > > > How does it get from 4,401,778 blocks to 4,253,289 blocks ? > > Somewhere along the line I lost about 250,000 blocks... ?? > > You neglected to account for the inode tables and other internal > filesystem structures that take up space in the filesystem. > > -- > Scott K. Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.gate.net/~storm/ > > -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: mke2fs & capacity (where did it go!?)
On Mon, 15 Dec 1997, matthew tebbens wrote: > But I don't have 4,401,778 blocks, I only have a total of 4,253,289 blocks > which becomes aprox 4,355,367,000 bytes. > > How does it get from 4,401,778 blocks to 4,253,289 blocks ? > Somewhere along the line I lost about 250,000 blocks... ?? You neglected to account for the inode tables and other internal filesystem structures that take up space in the filesystem. -- Scott K. Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.gate.net/~storm/ -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: mke2fs & capacity (where did it go!?)
On Mon, 15 Dec 1997, David Wright wrote: > On Sun, 14 Dec 1997, matthew tebbens wrote: > > > (victor)[root:~#] mke2fs -c -v /dev/sda1 > > mke2fs 1.10, 24-Apr-97 for EXT2 FS 0.5b, 95/08/09 > > Linux ext2 filesystem format > > Filesystem label= > > 1101824 inodes, 4401778 blocks > > 220088 blocks (5.00%) reserved for the super user > > First data block=1 > > Block size=1024 (log=0) > > Fragment size=1024 (log=0) > > 538 block groups > > 8192 blocks per group, 8192 fragments per group > > 2048 inodes per group > > Superblock backups stored on blocks: > > etc > [...] > > Here is what 'df' says about the drives: > > Filesystem 1024-blocks Used Available Capacity Mounted on > > /dev/hdb1 705433 485054 183942 73% / > > /dev/sda14253289 509553 3523648 13% /var/sda1 > > /dev/sdb14253289 13 4033188 0% /var/sdb1 > > /dev/sdc14253289 13 4033188 0% /var/sdc1 > > /dev/sdd14253289 13 4033188 0% /var/sdd1 > > > > This says I have 4,033,188 to play with plus 220,088 for reserved. > > Now, if I add those together I get 4,253,276. > > This is not even close to the stated formatted capacity of 4.51gigs. > > > > What am I missing here ?? > > 4,033,188 + 220,088 + 13 = 4,253,289 so that's all right then. > But that's not what's at issue. > What's relevant is the 4,401,778 blocks which becomes 4,507,420,672 bytes. > That looks better. But even that is only looking at the first partition > (sda1, sdb1 etc.) But I don't have 4,401,778 blocks, I only have a total of 4,253,289 blocks which becomes aprox 4,355,367,000 bytes. How does it get from 4,401,778 blocks to 4,253,289 blocks ? Somewhere along the line I lost about 250,000 blocks... ?? Thanks, Matthew -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: mke2fs & capacity (where did it go!?)
On Sun, 14 Dec 1997, matthew tebbens wrote: > (victor)[root:~#] mke2fs -c -v /dev/sda1 > mke2fs 1.10, 24-Apr-97 for EXT2 FS 0.5b, 95/08/09 > Linux ext2 filesystem format > Filesystem label= > 1101824 inodes, 4401778 blocks > 220088 blocks (5.00%) reserved for the super user > First data block=1 > Block size=1024 (log=0) > Fragment size=1024 (log=0) > 538 block groups > 8192 blocks per group, 8192 fragments per group > 2048 inodes per group > Superblock backups stored on blocks: > etc [...] > Here is what 'df' says about the drives: > Filesystem 1024-blocks Used Available Capacity Mounted on > /dev/hdb1 705433 485054 183942 73% / > /dev/sda14253289 509553 3523648 13% /var/sda1 > /dev/sdb14253289 13 4033188 0% /var/sdb1 > /dev/sdc14253289 13 4033188 0% /var/sdc1 > /dev/sdd14253289 13 4033188 0% /var/sdd1 > > This says I have 4,033,188 to play with plus 220,088 for reserved. > Now, if I add those together I get 4,253,276. > This is not even close to the stated formatted capacity of 4.51gigs. > > What am I missing here ?? 4,033,188 + 220,088 + 13 = 4,253,289 so that's all right then. But that's not what's at issue. What's relevant is the 4,401,778 blocks which becomes 4,507,420,672 bytes. That looks better. But even that is only looking at the first partition (sda1, sdb1 etc.) If you examine the partition table, you should find the partition is 2 * 4,401,778 sectors in size, and that there's probably no free space at the end. My own experience is that pre-installed W95 machines on ~ 2GB disks have a single FAT32 partition, but that this doesn't quite fill the disk. The last one I bought was 73heads, 63sectors; 936cylinders of FAT32, 84 unused. Of course it didn't matter as I was trashing it anyway. You can add a few sectors by maximising the partition to use the sectors in its first track. (This isn't the default as DOS can't.) -- David Wright, Open University, Earth Science Department, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA U.K. email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel: +44 1908 653 739 fax: +44 1908 655 151 -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: mke2fs & capacity (where did it go!?)
On Sun, 14 Dec 1997, matthew tebbens wrote: > Here is what 'df' says about the drives: > Filesystem 1024-blocks Used Available Capacity Mounted on > /dev/hdb1 705433 485054 183942 73% / > /dev/sda14253289 509553 3523648 13% /var/sda1 > > This says I have 4,033,188 to play with plus 220,088 for reserved. > Now, if I add those together I get 4,253,276. > This is not even close to the stated formatted capacity of 4.51gigs. 4,253,276 * 1024 = 4,355,354,624. Getting closer (they usually count a kilo as 1000 to inflate numbers). Changing the block size to a large number will also reduce the formatting info written to the disk, increasing the avail space, but also increasing the wasted space by small files. (winblows will probably use a much larger block size.) Does that help? Brandon - Brandon Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "We all know linux is great... it PGP: finger -l [EMAIL PROTECTED] does infinite loops in 5 seconds" Phone: (757) 221-4847 --Linus Torvalds -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
mke2fs & capacity (where did it go!?)
I'm trying to setup 4 4.51gig scsi drives. I used the following to setup the drives: (victor)[root:~#] mke2fs -c -v /dev/sda1 mke2fs 1.10, 24-Apr-97 for EXT2 FS 0.5b, 95/08/09 Linux ext2 filesystem format Filesystem label= 1101824 inodes, 4401778 blocks 220088 blocks (5.00%) reserved for the super user First data block=1 Block size=1024 (log=0) Fragment size=1024 (log=0) 538 block groups 8192 blocks per group, 8192 fragments per group 2048 inodes per group Superblock backups stored on blocks: etc And I did this for each one of the 4 drives Here is what 'df' says about the drives: Filesystem 1024-blocks Used Available Capacity Mounted on /dev/hdb1 705433 485054 183942 73% / /dev/sda14253289 509553 3523648 13% /var/sda1 /dev/sdb14253289 13 4033188 0% /var/sdb1 /dev/sdc14253289 13 4033188 0% /var/sdc1 /dev/sdd14253289 13 4033188 0% /var/sdd1 This says I have 4,033,188 to play with plus 220,088 for reserved. Now, if I add those together I get 4,253,276. This is not even close to the stated formatted capacity of 4.51gigs. What am I missing here ?? Is there a way to optimize the formatting of large harddrives to get the most out of them, or should 'mke2fs -c -v /dev/sdxx' always be used ? Thanks ! Matthew -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: mke2fs
Consider the report made. This thread should also be complete now. Thanks again to Monoj, Remco, David Wright, Phil and anyone else whose name I didn't mention for the excellent help and advice, David Stern. On 3 Oct 1997, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Hi, > >>"David" == David Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > David> Someone should probably make a report. At the time I wrote > David> this I hadn't noticed the companion copyright and > David> changelog.Debian files, or else I'd already have made such an > David> attempt. > > David> Should one simply e-mail Guy Maor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, or is > David> there a standard form that's used, or should this be posted to > David> the -devel list, or something else? I'd be glad to make a > David> report, but if you'd prefer go ahead. All I ask is to know the > David> "official" method. > > You need to send an email message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Since the program mke2fs existsts in the package e2fsprogs > __> dpkg -S mke2fs > e2fsprogs: /usr/man/man8/mke2fs.8.gz > e2fsprogs: /sbin/mke2fs > the bug report should be submitted on e2fsprogs. > > The first two line of your mail message should be the name and > version of the programs you are writing a bug report about, like so: > -- > Package: e2fsprogs > Version: 1.10-5 > > Hi, > [problem description here] > > -- System Information > Debian Release: 1.3 > Kernel Version: Linux tiamat 2.0.30 #1 Wed Jun 25 02:15:20 CDT 1997 i486 > unknown > > Versions of the packages e2fsprogs depends on: > libc5 Version: 5.4.33-7 > -- > > There is a nice little package called bug that helps you > submit bug reports (I used it to generate the template above). > > Please look at http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting.html> > for details. > > manoj > -- > "Yo baby yo baby yo." Eddie Murphy > Manoj Srivastava mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Mobile, Alabama USAhttp://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/> > -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: mke2fs
Hi,
>>"David" == David Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
David> Someone should probably make a report. At the time I wrote
David> this I hadn't noticed the companion copyright and
David> changelog.Debian files, or else I'd already have made such an
David> attempt.
David> Should one simply e-mail Guy Maor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, or is
David> there a standard form that's used, or should this be posted to
David> the -devel list, or something else? I'd be glad to make a
David> report, but if you'd prefer go ahead. All I ask is to know the
David> "official" method.
You need to send an email message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Since the program mke2fs existsts in the package e2fsprogs
__> dpkg -S mke2fs
e2fsprogs: /usr/man/man8/mke2fs.8.gz
e2fsprogs: /sbin/mke2fs
the bug report should be submitted on e2fsprogs.
The first two line of your mail message should be the name and
version of the programs you are writing a bug report about, like so:
--
Package: e2fsprogs
Version: 1.10-5
Hi,
[problem description here]
-- System Information
Debian Release: 1.3
Kernel Version: Linux tiamat 2.0.30 #1 Wed Jun 25 02:15:20 CDT 1997 i486 unknown
Versions of the packages e2fsprogs depends on:
libc5 Version: 5.4.33-7
--
There is a nice little package called bug that helps you
submit bug reports (I used it to generate the template above).
Please look at http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting.html>
for details.
manoj
--
"Yo baby yo baby yo." Eddie Murphy
Manoj Srivastava mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mobile, Alabama USAhttp://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: mke2fs
On Fri, 3 Oct 1997, Remco Blaakmeer wrote: > On Thu, 2 Oct 1997, David Stern wrote: > > > /usr/doc/util-linux/README.fdisk.gz says: > > > > You can have up to 64 partitions on a single IDE disk, or up to 16 > > partitions on a single SCSI disk, at least as far as Linux is > > concerned; in practice you will rarely want so many. > > > > Maybe that's why the debian maintainer created 16 scsi devices? > > Could be. I think this really is a bug in README.fdisk.gz. Should I file a > bug report against util-linux for this? > > Remco Someone should probably make a report. At the time I wrote this I hadn't noticed the companion copyright and changelog.Debian files, or else I'd already have made such an attempt. Should one simply e-mail Guy Maor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, or is there a standard form that's used, or should this be posted to the -devel list, or something else? I'd be glad to make a report, but if you'd prefer go ahead. All I ask is to know the "official" method. Thanks, David Stern -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: mke2fs
On Thu, 2 Oct 1997, David Stern wrote: > /usr/doc/util-linux/README.fdisk.gz says: > > You can have up to 64 partitions on a single IDE disk, or up to 16 > partitions on a single SCSI disk, at least as far as Linux is > concerned; in practice you will rarely want so many. > > Maybe that's why the debian maintainer created 16 scsi devices? Could be. I think this really is a bug in README.fdisk.gz. Should I file a bug report against util-linux for this? Remco -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: mke2fs
On Thu, 2 Oct 1997, David Stern wrote: > On Thu, 2 Oct 1997, David Wright wrote: > > > On Wed, 1 Oct 1997, David Stern wrote: > > > > [..Deleted stuff for brevity..] > > > > > Are you merely a stickler for detail, or does it concern you that > > > devices exist which have little (if any) practical use and are > > > potentially problematic? > > > > Yes, I'm afraid I'm a stickler for detail. It looks like the (old, if > > that's what you used; it's certainly what I used) installation disks are > > broken if they have /dev/sda16 on them. If /you/ had created /device/, then > > the problem might have only been present on your system. That's what I > > understood Philippe to be implying with "BTW, you have created sda16 > > yourself didn't you :-)". > So, I suppose that creating 16 scsi devices was merely an oversight, and > likewise that creating 20 ide devices was roughly the same, thus devices > 16-20 serve no practical purpose (unless obfuscation counts), correct? /usr/doc/util-linux/README.fdisk.gz says: You can have up to 64 partitions on a single IDE disk, or up to 16 partitions on a single SCSI disk, at least as far as Linux is concerned; in practice you will rarely want so many. Maybe that's why the debian maintainer created 16 scsi devices? David Stern -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: mke2fs
On Thu, 2 Oct 1997, David Wright wrote: > On Wed, 1 Oct 1997, David Stern wrote: > > [..Deleted stuff for brevity..] > > > Are you merely a stickler for detail, or does it concern you that > > devices exist which have little (if any) practical use and are > > potentially problematic? > > Yes, I'm afraid I'm a stickler for detail. It looks like the (old, if > that's what you used; it's certainly what I used) installation disks are > broken if they have /dev/sda16 on them. If /you/ had created /device/, then > the problem might have only been present on your system. That's what I > understood Philippe to be implying with "BTW, you have created sda16 > yourself didn't you :-)". I thought of both devices and partitions, neither seemed to fit at the moment (late at night) and it seemed superfluous, so I chose the simpler (partitions), just as a default. I used a 2-3 week old LSL official debian 1.3.1 cdrom. So, I suppose that creating 16 scsi devices was merely an oversight, and likewise that creating 20 ide devices was roughly the same, thus devices 16-20 serve no practical purpose (unless obfuscation counts), correct? > > A distantly related question (and equally important, hehe) is why those > > plus signs show up in fdisk -l if the partition ends on an even numbered > > cylinder. > > > > /dev/sdb11 151 151 218 546178+ 83 Linux native > > ^ right there! :-) > > I can't see a reference to + in man fdisk, but there's a reference there to > fuller documentation which I haven't looked up. Here's the elusive answer from /usr/doc/util-linux/README.fdisk.gz : The `+' after the sizes warns that these partitions contain an odd number of sectors: Linux normally allocates filespace in 1 kilobyte blocks. (I cut out some references which were impertinent.) Now that I know, what specifically is the danger of allocating filespace in blocks which do not equal 1 kilobyte and how seriously should this warning be taken? Thanks, David Stern -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: mke2fs
On Wed, 1 Oct 1997, David Wright wrote: > On Tue, 30 Sep 1997, David Stern wrote: > > > On Mon, 29 Sep 1997, Philippe Troin wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 29 Sep 1997 23:32:21 PDT David Stern wrote: > > > > > > > I tried changing the beginning and ending cylinders, to no avail. Why > > > > does mke2fs think /dev/sda16 is the entire drive? > > > > > > Because /dev/sda16 has major 8, minor 16, which is the major/minor pair > > > for /dev/sdb: look at 'ls -l /dev/sda16 /dev/sdb'. BTW, you have > > > created sda16 yourself didn't you :-) > > > > I created it during the install procedure manually, yes. > > You created the device (with mknod), or created the partition? Do you have > (as I do) > /dev/sda16 = /dev/sdb > [..] Oops. I thought Phil was asking me about creating the partition, but apparently he was asking me about creating the device. I have up to /dev/sd[a..h]16, yes. I also have up to /dev/hd[a..h]20. The only devices I created were ttyS[0..3] and cua[0..3]. Are you merely a stickler for detail, or does it concern you that devices exist which have little (if any) practical use and are potentially problematic? Now that you brought it to my attention, I'm a little curious. Not only why there are 16 scsi devices, but also why there are 20 ide devices, i.e.: the difference, in addition to the number being more than 15. A distantly related question (and equally important, hehe) is why those plus signs show up in fdisk -l if the partition ends on an even numbered cylinder. /dev/sdb11 151 151 218 546178+ 83 Linux native ^ right there! :-) David Stern -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: mke2fs
On Tue, 30 Sep 1997, David Stern wrote: > On Mon, 29 Sep 1997, Philippe Troin wrote: > > > On Mon, 29 Sep 1997 23:32:21 PDT David Stern ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > wrote: > > > > > I tried changing the beginning and ending cylinders, to no avail. Why > > > does mke2fs think /dev/sda16 is the entire drive? > > > > Because /dev/sda16 has major 8, minor 16, which is the major/minor pair > > for /dev/sdb: look at 'ls -l /dev/sda16 /dev/sdb'. BTW, you have > > created sda16 yourself didn't you :-) > > I created it during the install procedure manually, yes. You created the device (with mknod), or created the partition? Do you have (as I do) /dev/sda16 = /dev/sdb /dev/sdb16 = /dev/sdc /dev/sdc16 = /dev/sdd /dev/sdd16 = /dev/sde /dev/sde16 = /dev/sdf /dev/sdf16 = /dev/sdg /dev/sdg16 = /dev/sdh -- David Wright, Open University, Earth Science Department, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA U.K. email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel: +44 1908 653 739 fax: +44 1908 655 151 -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: mke2fs
On Mon, 29 Sep 1997, Philippe Troin wrote: > On Mon, 29 Sep 1997 23:32:21 PDT David Stern ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > wrote: > > > I'm having an irregular experience with mke2fs. I'm attempting to > > format /dev/sda16 and message says: > > > > > debian# mke2fs -v /dev/sda16 > > > mke2fs 1.10, 24-Apr-97 for EXT2 FS 0.5b, 95/08/09 > > > /dev/sda16 is entire device, not just one partition! > > > Proceed anyway? (y,n) > > > > But /dev/sda16 is just a 500MB partition, not an entire device: > > [...] > > I tried changing the beginning and ending cylinders, to no avail. Why > > does mke2fs think /dev/sda16 is the entire drive? > > Because /dev/sda16 has major 8, minor 16, which is the major/minor pair for /dev/sdb: look at 'ls -l /dev/sda16 /dev/sdb'. BTW, you have created sda16 yourself didn't you :-) > There is an infortunate 15 partition limit on PCs. I think anyone who installed Debian 1.3 with the 1997-05-30 installation floppies will have exactly the same devices. All mine do. Now I feel guilty for complaining that Debian 1.2 only had sdx1 through 8 (which bit me badly). [BTW I think you posted that "Because /dev ... didn't you :-)" all on one line.] -- David Wright, Open University, Earth Science Department, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA U.K. email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel: +44 1908 653 739 fax: +44 1908 655 151 -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: mke2fs
On Tue, 30 Sep 1997 00:16:12 PDT David Stern ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Mon, 29 Sep 1997, Philippe Troin wrote: > > > Because /dev/sda16 has major 8, minor 16, which is the major/minor pair > > for /dev/sdb: look at 'ls -l /dev/sda16 /dev/sdb'. BTW, you have > > created sda16 yourself didn't you :-) > > I created it during the install procedure manually, yes. > > > There is an infortunate 15 partition limit on PCs. > > Oh. Well..I'm a little surprised, very glad I asked, and very glad to > know. I wouldn't have even come close to figuring that one out alone. Yeah especially if you had something on /dev/sdb :-) Phil. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: mke2fs
On Mon, 29 Sep 1997, Philippe Troin wrote: > On Mon, 29 Sep 1997 23:32:21 PDT David Stern ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > wrote: > > > I'm having an irregular experience with mke2fs. I'm attempting to > > format /dev/sda16 and message says: > > > > > debian# mke2fs -v /dev/sda16 > > > mke2fs 1.10, 24-Apr-97 for EXT2 FS 0.5b, 95/08/09 > > > /dev/sda16 is entire device, not just one partition! > > > Proceed anyway? (y,n) > > > > But /dev/sda16 is just a 500MB partition, not an entire device: > > > > [..] > > /dev/sda4 147 147 527 3060382+ 5 Extended > > [..] > > /dev/sda16 463 463 527 522081 83 Linux native > > > > I tried changing the beginning and ending cylinders, to no avail. Why > > does mke2fs think /dev/sda16 is the entire drive? > > Because /dev/sda16 has major 8, minor 16, which is the major/minor pair > for /dev/sdb: look at 'ls -l /dev/sda16 /dev/sdb'. BTW, you have > created sda16 yourself didn't you :-) I created it during the install procedure manually, yes. > There is an infortunate 15 partition limit on PCs. Oh. Well..I'm a little surprised, very glad I asked, and very glad to know. I wouldn't have even come close to figuring that one out alone. Thanks Phil. David Stern -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: mke2fs
On Mon, 29 Sep 1997 23:32:21 PDT David Stern ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > I'm having an irregular experience with mke2fs. I'm attempting to > format /dev/sda16 and message says: > > > debian# mke2fs -v /dev/sda16 > > mke2fs 1.10, 24-Apr-97 for EXT2 FS 0.5b, 95/08/09 > > /dev/sda16 is entire device, not just one partition! > > Proceed anyway? (y,n) > > But /dev/sda16 is just a 500MB partition, not an entire device: > > [..] > /dev/sda4 147 147 527 3060382+ 5 Extended > [..] > /dev/sda16 463 463 527 522081 83 Linux native > > I tried changing the beginning and ending cylinders, to no avail. Why > does mke2fs think /dev/sda16 is the entire drive? Because /dev/sda16 has major 8, minor 16, which is the major/minor pair for /dev/sdb: look at 'ls -l /dev/sda16 /dev/sdb'. BTW, you have created sda16 yourself didn't you :-) There is an infortunate 15 partition limit on PCs. Phil. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
mke2fs
Hi, I'm having an irregular experience with mke2fs. I'm attempting to format /dev/sda16 and message says: > debian# mke2fs -v /dev/sda16 > mke2fs 1.10, 24-Apr-97 for EXT2 FS 0.5b, 95/08/09 > /dev/sda16 is entire device, not just one partition! > Proceed anyway? (y,n) But /dev/sda16 is just a 500MB partition, not an entire device: [..] /dev/sda4 147 147 527 3060382+ 5 Extended [..] /dev/sda16 463 463 527 522081 83 Linux native I tried changing the beginning and ending cylinders, to no avail. Why does mke2fs think /dev/sda16 is the entire drive? Thanks, David Stern -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
mke2fs with blocks other than 1024?
mke2fs doesn't want to make a filesystem with block sizes other than 1024.
It claims I have a bad block 0. For example:
# mke2fs -c -b 4096 /dev/hda1
mke2fs 1.10, 24-Apr-97 for EXT2 FS 0.5b, 95/08/09
Linux ext2 filesystem format
Filesystem label=
130048 inodes, 130024 blocks
6501 blocks (5.00%) reserved for the super user
First data block=0
Block size=4096 (log=2)
Fragment size=4096 (log=2)
4 block groups
32768 blocks per group, 32768 fragments per group
32512 inodes per group
Superblock backups stored on blocks:
32768, 65536, 98304
Checking for bad blocks (read-only test): done
Block 0 in primary superblock/group descriptor area bad.
Blocks 0 through 2 must be good in order to build a filesystem.
Aborting
whereas:
# mke2fs -c /dev/hda1
mke2fs 1.10, 24-Apr-97 for EXT2 FS 0.5b, 95/08/09
Linux ext2 filesystem format
Filesystem label=
130048 inodes, 520096 blocks
26004 blocks (5.00%) reserved for the super user
First data block=1
Block size=1024 (log=0)
Fragment size=1024 (log=0)
64 block groups
8192 blocks per group, 8192 fragments per group
2032 inodes per group
Superblock backups stored on blocks:
8193, 16385, 24577, 32769, 40961, 49153, 57345, 65537, 73729,
[etc.]
Checking for bad blocks (read-only test): done
Writing inode tables: done
Writing superblocks and filesystem accounting information: done
Now, what I find interesting is that the first data block is 1 for blocksize
of 1024, and 0 for every other size (2048, 4096).
Any ideas here?
Thanks,
Tim.
--
Tim Bell .--_|\
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / \
Department of Computer Science \_.--._/
University of Melbourne, Australia v
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: mke2fs problem
Jim Pick wrote: > > --==_Exmh_2089790933P > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > Hi, > > > > >From what I hear, there's a serious problem with that version of e2fsprogs > > (at least fsck) which may be affecting your new file-system. Also, I > > believe that 2 Gigs is the limit on a Linux filesystem's size so perhaps > > that's causing you problems as well... > > > > J. Goldman > > As someone who lost my 2.5GB partition - I'd be careful about making a > ext2fs partition (using the unstable distribution) that is > 2GB until > the glibc/e2fsprog bug is fixed. > I first used the e2fsprogs in the stable distribution (compiled against libc5) but it failed. I tried with a 1 Gb and a 500 Mb partition and it failed. It only succeeded with a 100 Mb partition. I also tried checking for bad blocks. The checking went OK and it failed when writing the inode table. > Oh yeah - don't make your partitions too large on your boot disk - > or lilo won't be able to use them to boot the kernel. > I already have a 2 Gb partition as my boot disk on another system. I don't remember if I was using Debian 1.2 or 1.3 when I created this partition. Christophe -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: mke2fs problem
> Hi, > > >From what I hear, there's a serious problem with that version of e2fsprogs > (at least fsck) which may be affecting your new file-system. Also, I > believe that 2 Gigs is the limit on a Linux filesystem's size so perhaps > that's causing you problems as well... > > J. Goldman As someone who lost my 2.5GB partition - I'd be careful about making a ext2fs partition (using the unstable distribution) that is > 2GB until the glibc/e2fsprog bug is fixed. Plus a correction - 2GB is the limit on the size of a single file in the Linux kernel. Partitions can be substantially larger... Oh yeah - don't make your partitions too large on your boot disk - or lilo won't be able to use them to boot the kernel. Cheers, - Jim pgpQYu7ug1pUj.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: mke2fs problem
On Tue, 29 Jul 1997, Jesse Goldman wrote: > Hi, > > >From what I hear, there's a serious problem with that version of e2fsprogs > (at least fsck) which may be affecting your new file-system. Also, I > believe that 2 Gigs is the limit on a Linux filesystem's size so perhaps > that's causing you problems as well... IIRC, 2 gigs is the limit on a file, not a filesystem. I believe the limit on the filesystem is in the terabytes. Probably more than any harddrive most people will run (although nasa's daac would have problems :-). Brandon - Brandon Mitchell E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/7877/home.html "We all know Linux is great...it does infinite loops in 5 seconds." --Linus Torvalds -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: mke2fs problem
On Tue, 29 Jul 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I just tried to partition my new hdisk (Quantum bigfoot 4.3 Gb) but I faced > the > following problem: > - I created a 2.0 Gb primary partition with fdisk (cylinders 1 to 255) > - When I created the partition with "mke2fs /dev/hdb1", it failed creating the > inode table with the following message: > Jul 29 23:27:07 bayes syslogd 1.3-0#15: restart. > Jul 29 23:28:05 bayes kernel: Oops: > Jul 29 23:28:05 bayes kernel: CPU:0 > Jul 29 23:28:05 bayes kernel: EIP:0010:[find_candidate+212/244] > Jul 29 23:28:05 bayes kernel: EFLAGS: 00010206 > Jul 29 23:28:05 bayes kernel: eax: ebx: 01172ce4 ecx: > edx: 001fa54c > Jul 29 23:28:05 bayes kernel: esi: edi: 01172ce4 ebp: 0400 > esp: 01172cac > Jul 29 23:28:05 bayes kernel: ds: 0018 es: 0018 fs: 002b gs: 002b ss: > 0018 > Jul 29 23:28:05 bayes kernel: Process mke2fs (pid: 186, process nr: 29, > stackpage=01172000) > Jul 29 23:28:05 bayes kernel: Stack: 01172ce4 0400 0001 > 00124855 01dc3a98 01172ce4 > Jul 29 23:28:05 bayes kernel:0400 0001 0341 0001 > 0400 0341 0007 0400 > Jul 29 23:28:05 bayes kernel:3218 035d 00124b9f 0341 > 00124cce 0400 0001 0400 > Jul 29 23:28:05 bayes kernel: Call Trace: [refill_freelist+153/948] > [getblk+47/936] [getblk+350/936] [block_write+519/1396] > [free_area_init+269/432] [timer_bh+193/820] [timer_bh+248/820] > Jul 29 23:28:05 bayes kernel:[do_bottom_half+59/96] > [handle_bottom_half+11/32] [V2_block_getblk+87/388] > [wake_up_interruptible+60/220] [n_tty_receive_buf+2799/2852] > [timer_bh+193/820] [timer_bh+193/820] [timer_bh+248/820] > Jul 29 23:28:05 bayes kernel:[do_bottom_half+59/96] > [pty_write+365/380] [tty_default_put_char+30/40] [opost+440/456] > [write_chan+247/400] [tty_write+221/304] [write_chan+0/400] > [sys_write+271/328] > Jul 29 23:28:05 bayes kernel:[do_bottom_half+59/96] > [system_call+85/128] > Jul 29 23:28:05 bayes kernel: Code: 8b 40 18 89 44 24 10 ff 0f 83 7c 24 10 00 > 0f 85 38 ff ff ff > > I'm using the following versions: > kernel: 2.0.30 > e2fsprogs: 1.10-4 ^^^ That's your problem, it's compiled against glibc, get -2 from stable and you shouldn't have a problem. since it's compiles against libc5 (glibc is buggy in a function e2fsprogs needs very badly for partitions over 2 gig) Shaya -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: mke2fs problem
Hi, >From what I hear, there's a serious problem with that version of e2fsprogs (at least fsck) which may be affecting your new file-system. Also, I believe that 2 Gigs is the limit on a Linux filesystem's size so perhaps that's causing you problems as well... J. Goldman -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
mke2fs problem
I just tried to partition my new hdisk (Quantum bigfoot 4.3 Gb) but I faced the following problem: - I created a 2.0 Gb primary partition with fdisk (cylinders 1 to 255) - When I created the partition with "mke2fs /dev/hdb1", it failed creating the inode table with the following message: Jul 29 23:27:07 bayes syslogd 1.3-0#15: restart. Jul 29 23:28:05 bayes kernel: Oops: Jul 29 23:28:05 bayes kernel: CPU:0 Jul 29 23:28:05 bayes kernel: EIP:0010:[find_candidate+212/244] Jul 29 23:28:05 bayes kernel: EFLAGS: 00010206 Jul 29 23:28:05 bayes kernel: eax: ebx: 01172ce4 ecx: edx: 001fa54c Jul 29 23:28:05 bayes kernel: esi: edi: 01172ce4 ebp: 0400 esp: 01172cac Jul 29 23:28:05 bayes kernel: ds: 0018 es: 0018 fs: 002b gs: 002b ss: 0018 Jul 29 23:28:05 bayes kernel: Process mke2fs (pid: 186, process nr: 29, stackpage=01172000) Jul 29 23:28:05 bayes kernel: Stack: 01172ce4 0400 0001 00124855 01dc3a98 01172ce4 Jul 29 23:28:05 bayes kernel:0400 0001 0341 0001 0400 0341 0007 0400 Jul 29 23:28:05 bayes kernel:3218 035d 00124b9f 0341 00124cce 0400 0001 0400 Jul 29 23:28:05 bayes kernel: Call Trace: [refill_freelist+153/948] [getblk+47/936] [getblk+350/936] [block_write+519/1396] [free_area_init+269/432] [timer_bh+193/820] [timer_bh+248/820] Jul 29 23:28:05 bayes kernel:[do_bottom_half+59/96] [handle_bottom_half+11/32] [V2_block_getblk+87/388] [wake_up_interruptible+60/220] [n_tty_receive_buf+2799/2852] [timer_bh+193/820] [timer_bh+193/820] [timer_bh+248/820] Jul 29 23:28:05 bayes kernel:[do_bottom_half+59/96] [pty_write+365/380] [tty_default_put_char+30/40] [opost+440/456] [write_chan+247/400] [tty_write+221/304] [write_chan+0/400] [sys_write+271/328] Jul 29 23:28:05 bayes kernel:[do_bottom_half+59/96] [system_call+85/128] Jul 29 23:28:05 bayes kernel: Code: 8b 40 18 89 44 24 10 ff 0f 83 7c 24 10 00 0f 85 38 ff ff ff I'm using the following versions: kernel: 2.0.30 e2fsprogs: 1.10-4 Has someone faced the same problem ? TIA, Christophe -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
