[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS: SB validate failed

To: Spam Magnet <spam.wax@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XFS: SB validate failed
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 17:19:57 -0500
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <3607657a0805291446t79808c63l664780c1cbc3d871@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <3607657a0805291005k457791cej1c5f867da0f95965@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <483EE5BD.8020407@xxxxxxxxxxx> <3607657a0805291255i59fd006fi9d6836cf528d19a6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <483F0BC3.2050901@xxxxxxxxxxx> <3607657a0805291400h3c50165lea6fbea919deed0f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <483F1AED.3010808@xxxxxxxxxxx> <3607657a0805291446t79808c63l664780c1cbc3d871@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird (Macintosh/20080421)
Spam Magnet wrote:
>> try xfs_repair -n then maybe.  Or update xfsprogs.  check shouldn't
>> segfault, regardless of the fs state.
> I updated xfsprogs to the latest version (cvs checkout) and it solved
> the segfault.
>> nah that's fine, images or disks, whichever.
> So I guess it doesn't matter if I do the image either using dd or xfsdump.
> I'd prefer dd since I get a lot of issues trying to compile xfsprogs under 
> Irix.
> Assuming that I get an image using dd, would a simple mount command suffice
> to use the xfs utils ? :
> $ mount -t xfs -o loop disk.img /mnt

that's fine, assuming your dd was of the partition that actually held
the xfs fs.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>