Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 10 Aug 2006 01:09:02 +0200 | From | "Molle Bestefich" <> | Subject | Re: ext3 corruption |
| |
Duane Griffin wrote: > > How close to 1-1 does "-n" relate to non-"-n" ? > > > > For example, does e2fsck take into consideration the changes it would > > have done itself in regular mode when it proceeds to the next problem > > and/or phase of a -n operation? > > It corresponds perfectly to you answering "no" to all questions :) > Sorry, I don't have a much better answer than that.
A good answer, even if it's one that can be found in the manual :-).
> > If it doesn't, then that command is, well, totally useless. > > That is too strong.
I don't think so.
If it doesn't take into account own changes, then the -n command is unable to produce even a slightly accurate resemblence of what would happen if I did a real run.
And that's about the only use case I can come up with for -n...
> You should be able to get an idea how severe the damage > is, at least.
If it's complete inaccurate, I can't trust the result, so that doesn't help me much, if any.
> From a quick read of the code it looks like your problem > is related to dodgy data in the superblock, and e2fsck will attempt to > recover & continue by reading the backup superblock.
Thanks a lot for checking !
I wonder then, will it write back this alternate superblock?
Is there anything I can do to control the process, like: Do a test mount with one of the alternate superblocks? Tell fsck to test a specific superblock; afterwards tell fsck to use a specific superblock?
That would be useful.
> It does that regardless of whether you use -n, > so in that respect at least it will operate in the > same way as "normal" operation.
Ok, that's very good to know, thanks a lot. - 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/
| |