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.

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