xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS: SB validate failed

To: "Stefan Smietanowski" <stesmi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XFS: SB validate failed
From: "Spam Magnet" <spam.wax@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 15:39:07 -0400
Cc: "Timothy Shimmin" <tes@xxxxxxx>, "Eric Sandeen" <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=cLI6zuruZDJ1bZ0knTuyZuET80CIehI57K9n5NIxzJ8=; b=WeVtSBb4+QpHFurCgPkUAPK3UVa6b8r+urcZrpiXBYkHA/HhaVpJX+TaUPmvz27x4Ej5Elb/2apaQRhavBgv7bYOxTjlrSK3muDPKfHrediBcbOzlbJv783bkyHSVd4dIba0yCksgTtJjHf4dypsYz4X3aZiEwWzedrOW3lWVl8=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=vIt96G7drocUocYPYGQwHp9ogUHLxVib04JsdauB32XQbnTefVvn6i2F2uGI+yh4w0wS0L+KsmdMeOcj7wdPfE5dIKOwPycZblM4ctkRY/rew58DzwKBEPkw6wxC7U9V73naaNY5839ldZeuqUJ0ifHe6SAwvNxRide5lwZpIm0=
In-reply-to: <4845949F.7080209@stesmi.com>
References: <3607657a0805291005k457791cej1c5f867da0f95965@mail.gmail.com> <3607657a0805301019h4a49dc86ne8f1f019629a1c41@mail.gmail.com> <4840406F.50402@stesmi.com> <48408D3E.3090401@gmail.com> <48409981.1050405@stesmi.com> <48425148.1080105@gmail.com> <48427DEE.40400@stesmi.com> <3607657a0806031036r702ab6a5w7ca6517c19395b9b@mail.gmail.com> <3607657a0806031056w24efa917q625f13bfe9eaa706@mail.gmail.com> <4845949F.7080209@stesmi.com>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Stefan Smietanowski <stesmi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Spam Magnet wrote:
>>>
>>> (The healthy disk image also doesn't have any XFS but it has: 'S f x'
>>> (capital s))
>>
>> Correcting my mistake:
>>
>> The healthy image file does have the X F S B at 10000000  (octal) as
>> fdisk had reported:
>> Pt#          Device  Info     Start       End   Sectors  Id  System
>>  8: 2gb-ubuntu.img1            4096   3915599   3911504   a  SGI xfs
>>
>> 4096*512=2097152 (10000000 octal):
>> $ od -t c 2gb-ubuntu.img | grep 10000000
>> 10000000   X   F   S   B  \0  \0 020  \0  \0  \0  \0  \0  \0  \a   u 350
>>
>> I tried to see if I can find do the same thing for jaz7.img:
>> Pt#    Device  Info     Start       End   Sectors  Id  System
>>  8: jaz7.img1            3072   2091007   2087936   a  SGI xfs
>>
>> $ od -t c jaz7.img | grep 6000000
>> 6000000  \0  \0  \0  \0  \0  \0  \0  \0  \0  \0  \0  \0  \0  \0  \0  \0
>>
>> I guess all those zeros are not good signs.
>
> Wait a moment. Aren't jaz sectors 2k each?
>
> Try at 3072*2048 instead.
>
> // Stefan
>

I think they are but I used -u option of fdisk:
$ fdisk -ul jaz7.img
Disk jaz7.img (SGI disk label): 255 heads, 63 sectors, 0 cylinders
Units = sectors of 1 * 512 bytes
----- partitions -----
Pt#    Device  Info     Start       End   Sectors  Id  System
 8: jaz7.img1            3072   2091007   2087936   a  SGI xfs
 9: jaz7.img2               0      3071      3072   0  SGI volhdr
11: jaz7.img3               0   2091007   2091008   6  SGI volume

which lists partitions in sector units. As oppose to:

$ fdisk -l jaz7.img

Disk jaz7.img (SGI disk label): 255 heads, 63 sectors, 0 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 bytes

----- partitions -----
Pt#    Device  Info     Start       End   Sectors  Id  System
 8: jaz7.img1               1       130   2087936   a  SGI xfs
 9: jaz7.img2               0         0      3072   0  SGI volhdr
11: jaz7.img3               0       130   2091008   6  SGI volume


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