Subject: RE: FFS File System Corruption - 1.6ZG GENERIC.MP - Intel N440BX Dual CPU
To: Martin Husemann <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Conrad T. Pino <Conrad@Pino.com>
Date: 12/27/2003 15:27:48
Here's the "fsck_ffs" picture:
# find / -name fsck_ffs -ls
204397 2 drwxr-xr-x 4 root wheel 512 Dec 27 04:23 /usr/src/sbin/fsck_ffs
6173090 4768 -r-xr-xr-x 129 root wheel 2429184 Dec 27 08:35 /usr/src/destdir.i386/rescue/fsck_ffs
6173044 164 -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 83144 Dec 27 08:20 /usr/src/destdir.i386/sbin/fsck_ffs
5741595 2 drwxr-xr-x 2 root wheel 1024 Dec 27 07:14 /usr/obj/sbin/fsck_ffs
5741994 180 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 92077 Dec 27 07:14 /usr/obj/sbin/fsck_ffs/fsck_ffs
5721434 2 drwxr-xr-x 2 root wheel 1024 Dec 27 07:56 /usr/obj/rescue/fsck_ffs
40494 656 -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 322988 Sep 8 2002 /sbin/fsck_ffs
I presume "/sbin/fsck_ffs" is the problem and this implies that:
didn't do what I expected per:
This is my first attempt to track -current and the above looks
fool proof but it seems I may still be foolish enough.
I'm now concerned the userland install failed even though I took
the ending message as a success.
May safely assume "/sbin/fsck_ffs" should be replaced with the
"/usr/src/destdir.i386/sbin/fsck_ffs" (83144) even though it's
smaller than "/sbin/fsck_ffs" (322988)?
I'm concerned that if "/sbin/fsck_ffs" wasn't updated then what
else could have been missed. Any suggestions on how to assure
the entire userland was updated?
From: Martin Husemann [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2003 15:06
To: Conrad T. Pino
Cc: NetBSD Current
Subject: Re: FFS File System Corruption - 1.6ZG GENERIC.MP - Intel
N440BX Dual CPU
On Sat, Dec 27, 2003 at 02:52:17PM -0800, Conrad T. Pino wrote:
> No problem with 1.6.1 GENERIC kernel.
> Repeats every time with 1.6ZG GENERIC.MP kernel:
> # shutdown -r now
> On reboot:
> UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY; RUN fsck_ffs MANUALLY.
What vintage is your fsk_ffs binary?
If it's 1.6 you should get the latest 1.6.2_RC3 one and replace it, see
the entry in src/UPDATING copied below.
The superblock layout for FFS was changed. If you have 1.6
fsck binaries, they will signal a fatal superblock mismatch
with the first alternate, because they compare too many
fields (even ones that aren't useful). If possible, upgrade
your fsck_ffs binary before using a new kernel.
None of this signals actual filesystem damage.