Subject: Re: fsck and others die with Floating Point exception
To: Ken Nakata <email@example.com>
From: Yoshihisa Sugimoto <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 03/09/1995 21:02:55
At 1:06 PM 95.3.8 -0500, Ken Nakata wrote:
> # ./fsck -d
> ** /dev/rsd1a (NO WRITE)
> &sblock 2e000, &altsblock 31000, sblock.fs_sbsize, 800
>Are these block addresses same to those MacOS side MKFS reported? My
>Quantum 540M drive looks like having different geometries to MKFS and
>the kernel, and that *might* make the kernel look other places for
>alternate superblocks than where MKFS placed.
I didn't record the block addresses MKFS reported. So I cannot compare
In addition, I found more odd things.
The record of fsck I reported was made by "# ./fsck -d > fsck_result".
When I command "# ./fsck -d | more ", the result is _different_ from
that with the redirection.
# ./fsck -d | more
** /dev/rsd1a (NO WRITE)
&sblock 2d000, &altsblock 30000, sblock.fs_sbsize, 800
offset 0, original 0, alternate 0
offset 1, original 0, alternate 0
offset 2, original 10, alternate 5b5b5b5b
offset 3, original 18, alternate 5b5b5b5b
The addresses of superblock and alternate are 0x1000 smaller than
those by redirection. The data are identical except for them. Why?
Yoshihisa Sugimoto / email@example.com
The First Department of Medicine / The Medical Information Center
Shiga University of Medical Science, Ohtsu, Shiga, Japan