lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: fs corruption recovery?
Date


On Wednesday 09 January 2002 04:07, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> Try "e2fsck -B 4096 -b 32768 <device>" instead.

I thought e2fsck was already trying the different superblocks present on the
device. Why isn't e2fsck smart enought to look for then ? Is this an
intended purpose ?

Why do you use the -B option ? How can it be useful to force the block size
? Especially if this one is different.

Thanx,
Thomas
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:15    [W:0.150 / U:2.436 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site