fsck - strange behaviour - Aix

This is a discussion on fsck - strange behaviour - Aix ; Hi some days ago I have a damaged filesystem, a fsck -y /fs fails with the message, that both superblocks where damaged and cannot be fixed (fs was unmounted before fsck) So I create a new filesystem, restore the files ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: fsck - strange behaviour

  1. fsck - strange behaviour

    Hi

    some days ago I have a damaged filesystem, a fsck -y /fs fails with the
    message, that both superblocks where damaged and cannot be fixed (fs was
    unmounted before fsck)
    So I create a new filesystem, restore the files of the damaged fs into
    the new one - no loss of data occurs.

    But today I run a fsck -v against the damaged filesystem and got a
    message that the superblock is valid.

    Whats the heck is going on here, is there a difference between fsck -y
    and fsck -v ?

    Friedhelm

  2. Re: fsck - strange behaviour

    Friedhelm Neyer wrote:
    > Hi


    > some days ago I have a damaged filesystem, a fsck -y /fs fails with the
    > message, that both superblocks where damaged and cannot be fixed (fs was
    > unmounted before fsck)
    > So I create a new filesystem, restore the files of the damaged fs into
    > the new one - no loss of data occurs.


    > But today I run a fsck -v against the damaged filesystem and got a
    > message that the superblock is valid.


    > Whats the heck is going on here, is there a difference between fsck -y
    > and fsck -v ?


    > Friedhelm


    Did you umount the filesystem before you ran fsck?

    --
    Regards,
    Jerry M.

    This E-Mail server is a text only server, NO HTML. Attachments will be
    downloaded to a non-Windowz system.

  3. Re: fsck - strange behaviour

    Jerald H. Mathews schrieb:
    > Friedhelm Neyer wrote:
    >> Hi

    >
    >> some days ago I have a damaged filesystem, a fsck -y /fs fails with the
    >> message, that both superblocks where damaged and cannot be fixed (fs was
    >> unmounted before fsck)
    >> So I create a new filesystem, restore the files of the damaged fs into
    >> the new one - no loss of data occurs.

    >
    >> But today I run a fsck -v against the damaged filesystem and got a
    >> message that the superblock is valid.

    >
    >> Whats the heck is going on here, is there a difference between fsck -y
    >> and fsck -v ?

    >
    >> Friedhelm

    >
    > Did you umount the filesystem before you ran fsck?
    >

    yep, fs was umounted

+ Reply to Thread