Re: [SLE] Can't read superblock ???
Bombadil@ya.com writes:
After modify /etc/fstab (I think it's right) when I try to mout the hd I get the message "Can't read superblock", Can anyone tell me what it means?
It means what it says. I suggest you use the partitioner module of YaST to re-create and mount the filesystem. -- A.M.
Bombadil@ya.com writes:
After modify /etc/fstab (I think it's right) when I try to mout the hd I get the message "Can't read superblock", Can anyone tell me what it means?
It means what it says. I suggest you use the partitioner module of YaST to re-create and mount the filesystem.
-- A.M. All it says is "Can't read superblock". It doesn't say 're-create and mount
On Wednesday 10 December 2003 02:02 pm, Alexandr Malusek wrote: the filesystem'. It is not obvious, to me at least, that the first means the second:-). Jerome
Jerome Lyles
On Wednesday 10 December 2003 02:02 pm, Alexandr Malusek wrote:
Bombadil@ya.com writes:
After modify /etc/fstab (I think it's right) when I try to mout the hd I get the message "Can't read superblock", Can anyone tell me what it means?
It means what it says. I suggest you use the partitioner module of YaST to re-create and mount the filesystem.
All it says is "Can't read superblock". It doesn't say 're-create and mount the filesystem'. It is not obvious, to me at least, that the first means the second:-).
The "second" is a recipe to fix a problem described by the "first" when you add a new disk. A superblock is a structure in the filesystem which contains "global" information about the filesystem. (Try e.g. dumpe2fs on an EXT2 FS on a floppy to see what is inside this superblock.) If the superblock cannot be read then the FS cannot be mounted - usually, the FS is non-existent or corrupted. -- A.M.
The Wednesday 2003-12-10 at 23:25 -0800, Jerome Lyles wrote:
All it says is "Can't read superblock".
Right.
It doesn't say 're-create and mount the filesystem'.
No, that is up to you to decide: it is not the only possibility. You are the sysadmin, so you must know and act ;-) For example, you could be using the wrong filesystem; if you format an already formated disk by another system, you loose data. It can not advise you to reformat straight away, that's your decision to take.
It is not obvious, to me at least, that the first means the second:-).
What do you prefer, "abort, retry, fail"? :-p -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson
On Thursday 11 December 2003 05:25 am, Carlos E. R. wrote:
The Wednesday 2003-12-10 at 23:25 -0800, Jerome Lyles wrote:
All it says is "Can't read superblock".
Right.
It doesn't say 're-create and mount the filesystem'.
No, that is up to you to decide: it is not the only possibility. You are the sysadmin, so you must know and act ;-)
For example, you could be using the wrong filesystem; if you format an already formated disk by another system, you loose data. It can not advise you to reformat straight away, that's your decision to take.
It is not obvious, to me at least, that the first means the second:-).
What do you prefer, "abort, retry, fail"? :-p
-- Cheers, Carlos Robinson
This is part of the original statement: get the message "Can't read superblock", Can anyone tell me what it
means?
It means what it says. I suggest you use the partitioner module of YaST to re-create and mount the filesystem.
"Can't read superblock", Can anyone tell me what it
means? To my mind this person is asking: How do I interpret this message? As you point out there are several ways to interpret this message.
The response: 'It means what it says'. Is a form of circular logic since it points back to "Can't read superblock" as the answer to the question: 'How do I interpret this message?' which is my interpretation of: 'Can anyone tell me what it means?'. Being one who is still learning linux many of the error messages are useless to me because they give no clue about what to do about the error. The same with the man pages. It would be so helpful if there were one or two examples on every man page to show explicitly how to use the command. I'm glad this came up, Jerome
Jerome Lyles
The response: 'It means what it says'. Is a form of circular logic
I don't agree. There was no logic there. I just pointed out the message didn't contain any hidden meaning.
It would be so helpful if there were one or two examples on every man page to show explicitly how to use the command.
That is the role of info pages, howtos, user guides, ... I don't think there is anything wrong with man pages. The problem is that many good info pages are still missing. -- A.M.
The Thursday 2003-12-11 at 14:57 -0800, Jerome Lyles wrote:
"Can't read superblock", Can anyone tell me what it
means? To my mind this person is asking: How do I interpret this message? As you point out there are several ways to interpret this message.
Right.
The response: 'It means what it says'. Is a form of circular logic since it points back to "Can't read superblock" as the answer to the question: 'How do I interpret this message?' which is my interpretation of: 'Can anyone tell me what it means?'.
I don't really know what a superblock is - after all, I started with dos, so I could describe the FAT on some detail - but I do know it is related to the internal structure of some filesystems used in *nix, as the ext2 used by Linux, so related to the format of a partition. "It means what it says" - well... perhaps not too fortunate, but it is true in it self. It means the program is unable to read something very important that should be on the disk, and can not continue without it. But the message is about as cryptic as what you get from Dos/windows on the same situation. Worse: if you try to read a Linux formated floppy, it will suggest formating it. The truth of the matter is that, IMHO, for some tasks, you need not a "user", but an "expert", or some of it. Computers are not appliances, they need skilled maintenance sometimes - and Linux has some rough edges on that area. Installing a new disk or partition is certainly a maintenance task, reserved to root... and Linux (or Unix) assumes that "root" really knows what he is doing.
Being one who is still learning linux many of the error messages are useless to me because they give no clue about what to do about the error. The same with the man pages. It would be so helpful if there were one or two examples on every man page to show explicitly how to use the command.
I couldn't agree more on that. However, if you use "info" (or pinfo) instead of "man", some times you will find more complete information. -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson
Carlos E. R. wrote:
Being one who is still learning linux many of the error messages are useless to me because they give no clue about what to do about the error. The same with the man pages. It would be so helpful if there were one or two examples on every man page to show explicitly how to use the command.
I couldn't agree more on that.
For sure.
However, if you use "info" (or pinfo) instead of "man", some times you will find more complete information.
Or less. :-( -- "You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." John 8:32 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/
The Friday 2003-12-12 at 10:00 -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
However, if you use "info" (or pinfo) instead of "man", some times you will find more complete information.
Or less. :-(
Sometimes, but not usually. For example, compare "man gcc" to "pinfo gcc". Or "man wget" versus "pinfo wget" - the later has examples, for one thing. "man" makes very easy to search for a certain text. "info", however, not so easy, because it is not a flat file, but several pages you have to browse and find out. -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson
"Carlos E. R."
"man" makes very easy to search for a certain text. "info", however, not so easy, because it is not a flat file, but several pages you have to browse and find out.
I don't understand the comment. The command "info" supports both search and incremental search, Emacs supports regexp search. Some clients (e.g. konqueror) don't support the multiple-file search but it is not a problem of the info files. -- A.M.
The Friday 2003-12-12 at 23:51 +0100, Alexandr Malusek wrote:
"man" makes very easy to search for a certain text. "info", however, not so easy, because it is not a flat file, but several pages you have to browse and find out.
I don't understand the comment. The command "info" supports both search and incremental search, Emacs supports regexp search.
Let me check... ah, my mistake. "Info" does search the branches, it is "pinfo" who doesn't.
Some clients (e.g. konqueror) don't support the multiple-file search but it is not a problem of the info files.
I see. -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson
participants (4)
-
Alexandr Malusek -
Carlos E. R. -
Felix Miata -
Jerome Lyles