| 1 |
On 11/17/19 16:06, Mick wrote: |
| 2 |
> You keep top-posting and inverting the logical Q/A flow of this thread ... |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> On Sunday, 17 November 2019 12:53:51 GMT n952162 wrote: |
| 5 |
>> Ah, now I see. Yes, in that respect, that is, if you don't have a |
| 6 |
>> chance to get /forcefsck written. |
| 7 |
> Running fsck manually with various options and then trying to recover various |
| 8 |
> superblock locations could get you farther than simply running fsck in an |
| 9 |
> accepting fashion. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Have you had any experience with this? I spent days search for that |
| 12 |
superblock once, even writing a pgm to search for the magic number, |
| 13 |
after working with dump2fs, and never got anywhere. I'd sure like to |
| 14 |
hear that somebody had success with it. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Needless to say, you would not try this on the original partition, but a |
| 18 |
> backup image you can create with ddrescue and friends. In any case, running |
| 19 |
> fsck.ext4 -n (or -E nodiscard) should not cause any fs losses, unless the |
| 20 |
> disk/hardware is faulty. Hence working on a backup image is the safest |
| 21 |
> option. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Thanks for the tip about ddrescue. |
Archives