Subject: Re: fsck and others die with Floating Point exception
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Ken Nakata <email@example.com>
Date: 03/09/1995 14:45:27
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 1995 21:02:55 +0900
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Yoshihisa Sugimoto)
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
I think you can run MKFS without really formatting the partition and
see what it says, can't you?
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
The addresses of superblock and alternate are 0x1000 smaller than
those by redirection. The data are identical except for them. Why?
I have no idea why it is so, but have you tried to mkfs from MacBSD?
I mkfs'ed my Quantum drive with BSD mkfs (not MacOS MKFS) because the
geometry MacBSD reported looked more like a real thing than the one
MacOS MKFS reported. I can't mount that partition from the Installer
(due to a non-default mkfs parameter set I gave), but otherwise I have
Hope this helps,