On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 02:00:28PM -0500, Tom Oehser wrote:
> 
> Probably it would be safer to do the dd *then* the mkfs.

Tried that. If I then immediately boot to the W98 rescue disk,
scandisk reports that the two FATs disagree. I've had other problems,
including complaints from more recent versions of dosfsck.

I think I'll recommend one of two work-arounds to users. In both
cases, ignore FAT 32 on tomsrtbt.

* After the first stage restore, boot to a W98 rescue disk and use
  format there. "format -q -s c:" should do it.

* Use mkdosfs from a more recent version of Linux. If you are doing a
  bare metal restore, you can do that after you have restored your
  Linux partition. You can do it manually. I've added it to my second
  state restoration script. Unfortunately, you still have to boot W98
  and run "sys c:". Gnrrrr.

> 
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Charles Curley wrote:
> 
> > Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:44:41 -0700
> > From: Charles Curley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: Tom Oehser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [tomsrtbt] FAT 32 mkdosfs problem
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 04:15:20PM -0500, Tom Oehser wrote:
> > >
> > > I do it like this:
> > >
> > > mkdosfs -v -F32 /dev/hda1
> >
> > Maybe I have the syntax wrong.
> >
> > I tried it your way and scandisk reported that I had the amount of
> > free space reported incorrectly.
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] root]# fsck /dev/hda1
> > fsck 1.34 (25-Jul-2003)
> > dosfsck 2.8, 28 Feb 2001, FAT32, LFN
> > Warning: FAT32 support is still ALPHA.
> > Free cluster summary wrong (42818 vs. really 42817)
> > 1) Correct
> > 2) Don't correct
> > ?
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Assuming your dd didn't screw it up, try that way...
> >
> >
> > The dd line seems to make things worse. I did find that I can restore
> > operation by booting to the W98 rescue disk and running "sys c:"
> >
> > I'll keep mucking with it.
> >
> > >
> > > -Tom
> > >
> > > On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Charles Curley wrote:
> > >
> > > > Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 14:05:36 -0700
> > > > From: Charles Curley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Subject: [tomsrtbt] FAT 32 mkdosfs problem
> > > >
> > > > I just tried putting a FAT 32 file system on a ~ 3 GB partition using
> > > > tomsrtbt 2.0.103, mkdosfs 0.4.1, September 1998. I then restored the
> > > > old boot record:
> > > >
> > > > echo formatting /dev/hda1
> > > > mkdosfs $blockcheck -F 32 /dev/hda1
> > > > # restore FAT boot sector.
> > > > dd if=dev.hda1 of=/dev/hda1 bs=512 count=1
> > > >
> > > > I then mounted the partition to see what was there, and the old root
> > > > directory appeared to be there. Scandisk reported numerous errors,
> > > > mostly the root directory files being shorter than the directory entry
> > > > indicated.
> > > >
> > > > It looks like the verion of mkdosfs on Fedora Core 1 (mkdosfs 2.8 (28
> > > > Feb 2001)) will do the job correctly.
> > > >
> > > > Has anyone else seen this?
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Charles Curley                  /"\    ASCII Ribbon Campaign
> > > > Looking for fine software       \ /    Respect for open standards
> > > > and/or writing?                  X     No HTML/RTF in email
> > > > http://www.charlescurley.com    / \    No M$ Word docs in email
> > > >
> > > > Key fingerprint = CE5C 6645 A45A 64E4 94C0  809C FFF6 4C48 4ECD DFDB
> > > >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Charles Curley                  /"\    ASCII Ribbon Campaign
> > Looking for fine software       \ /    Respect for open standards
> > and/or writing?                  X     No HTML/RTF in email
> > http://www.charlescurley.com    / \    No M$ Word docs in email
> >
> > Key fingerprint = CE5C 6645 A45A 64E4 94C0  809C FFF6 4C48 4ECD DFDB
> >

-- 

Charles Curley                  /"\    ASCII Ribbon Campaign
Looking for fine software       \ /    Respect for open standards
and/or writing?                  X     No HTML/RTF in email
http://www.charlescurley.com    / \    No M$ Word docs in email

Key fingerprint = CE5C 6645 A45A 64E4 94C0  809C FFF6 4C48 4ECD DFDB

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to