Subject: Re: tar hangup and numerous fs errors
To: Allen Briggs <>
From: Bharat S. Jhaveri <bjhaveri@Arco.COM>
List: macbsd-general
Date: 04/06/1994 08:49:07
>> What I find that almost never I
>> can use tar to extract a large archive, like 25 to 30 MB tar files. It
>> extracts maybe a 20 or so diles and hangs up. I found a way to do this is
>This is very odd...  I haven't seen this at all.  Does this happen on
>/ and /usr, or just one?  Does it hang up doing anything else?

  It does it both in / and /usr. It hangs up other times also, like when I
have slip connection, I am be reading mail or telneting or whatever, and it
may hang up. As far as fsck is concerned, I almost always have to do it
twice before I get in multiuser mode. I get in single user, do "fsck -p /"
and "fsck -p /usr" , "reboot -n", and do fsck again , untill everything is
OK. Then I  ^D to multiuser mode. I then work for a while, untill the
kernel panics. On shutting the power off and restarting, I find that the
file system is corrupted. Errors are the same, SUPERBLOCK wrong size, BAD

  I used Micronet Tech.'s disk partitioning to partition the disk A/UX
Style with MacOS. It said a total of 485494 blocks including MacOS (I have
237 MB Disk). The "disklabel -r /dev/rsd0c" (disklabel /dev/sd0 dopes not
work) gives a total of 485601 blocks. A difference of 107. But the
disklabel output has offset of only 96. 

     Partition    Blocks    Offset    TYPE

      A           39900      30021    UFS   /
      B           65550      69921    SWAP     
      C          485601          0      
      D           29925         96     MacOS
      E          350119     135471    UFS    /usr

But (39900 + 65500 +29925 +350119) = 485494. Not 485601.

Also I have in disklabel output   No. of cyls        1691
                                  No. of tracks/cyl   5
                                  Sectors/track       57

but 1691 x 5 x 57 = 481935,
which is neither 485494 as Micronet gives
or 485601 as disklabel gives.

   So, I thought that maybe offset should be 107 rather than 96. I tried to
change the offset by 107, but disklabel -e, did not allow me to edit it. I
wonder if all these offsets are screwed up, and I should start all over
again. Or that these problems are more IIci related? If there is a disk
partitioning problem that could be somehow corrected without reinstalling,
that will be nice.

Thanks for your help.

Bharat S. Jhaveri