xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: bad version from xfs_repair after raid crash

To: Andreas Vogler <andreas.vogler@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: bad version from xfs_repair after raid crash
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 16:45:52 -0500
Cc: "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <27CE2179D1925A4F9F4874725C3B4E0F0C5EFB6E94@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <27CE2179D1925A4F9F4874725C3B4E0F0C5EFB6E94@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
On 8/11/12 9:59 AM, Andreas Vogler wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> we had a crash of a raid 5 system. After rebuilding we could access one of  
> two partitions. Upon mounting the second parttion we got an error "mount: 
> Structure needs cleaning". So we tried using xfs_repair.
> 
> Xfs_repair returns: "bad primary superblock - bad version number !!!"
> 
> and tries to find a secondary superblock but gives up after scanning the 
> volume.
> 
> Looking at the superblock with xfs_db looks good as far as I can tell. Can 
> anybody give me a hint what "bad version number" means?

There is a version number in the superblock itself, which must have features 
recognized by repair.

Is your xfsprogs version up to date?

You could also include another email with the output from xfs_db -c "sb 0" -c 
"p" /dev/blah

-Eric

> Thank you very much in advance.
> 
>   Andreas Vogler
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
> 

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