Re: [SLE] Suse 10.1 doesn't start anymore.: help!
I replaced the HD. Try running several passes of badblocks on the partition holding yours to see if your problem might too be the HD
Thanks for the tip. However, I have found here: http://www.die.net/doc/linux/man/man8/badblocks.8.html that "it is strongly recommended that users not run badblocks directly, but rather use the -c option of the e2fsck and mke2fs programs". shouldn't I do that instead? Or, better, "e3fsck -c", since these are ext3 file systems? TIA, Marco
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Wednesday 2006-10-18 at 16:13 +0200, Marco Fioretti wrote:
that "it is strongly recommended that users not run badblocks directly, but rather use the -c option of the e2fsck and mke2fs programs".
shouldn't I do that instead?
It wouldn't hurt - well, mke2fs would.
Or, better, "e3fsck -c", since these are ext3 file systems?
There is no e3fsck; and if it were, it would be a symlink to the other. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFFNjiItTMYHG2NR9URAlThAJsGDLbcu4cdb7mIEGEfYtYU1hny6wCfcPOm +dY2xfzYwq/BjygNI6GW3C0= =bh7q -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 06/10/18 10:13 (GMT-0400) Marco Fioretti apparently typed:
Felix Miata wrote:
I replaced the HD. Try running several passes of badblocks on the partition holding yours to see if your problem might too be the HD
Thanks for the tip. However, I have found here:
that "it is strongly recommended that users not run badblocks directly, but rather use the -c option of the e2fsck and mke2fs programs".
shouldn't I do that instead? Or, better, "e3fsck -c", since these are ext3 file systems?
AFAIK, fsck is geared to filesystem integrity checking, while badblocks is geared to physical device checking. If you suspect the physical device might be a problem, then you want to thoroughly test that physical device. Naturally, do it while it is unmounted. -- "The Lord is my strength and my shield; my heart trusts in him, and I am helped." Psalm 28:7 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Wednesday 2006-10-18 at 10:27 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
AFAIK, fsck is geared to filesystem integrity checking, while badblocks is geared to physical device checking. If you suspect the physical device might be a problem, then you want to thoroughly test that physical device. Naturally, do it while it is unmounted.
Yes and no. On ext2/3 partitions, the -c parameter makes it call "badblocks": -c This option causes e2fsck to run the badblocks(8) program to find any blocks which are bad on the filesystem, and then marks them as bad by adding them to the bad block inode. If this option is specified twice, then the bad block scan will be done using a non-destructive read-write test. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFFNpyEtTMYHG2NR9URAmJuAJ9hIF0Z7owqhYW/jvD+jrebpSFqDACeKC0J QH9XXROCOvbyDeKAaf1HdoU= =4C1R -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (3)
-
Carlos E. R.
-
Felix Miata
-
Marco Fioretti