[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: FAT: Filesystem panic



On 2011-04-05 09:46, George Chelidze wrote:
> On 04/03/2011 12:23 AM, Stanisław Findeisen wrote:
>> On 2011-04-01 13:06, George Chelidze wrote:
>>> I'v got 2 boxes running squeeze and lenny, both up to date. On a box
>>> with squeeze, I copied 1.8G images to a 2G flash drive and tried to move
>>> them to my lenny box. After mounting a drive (hal) on a lenny box cpu
>>> jumped to 100%, and after about 30 secs a new window came up with some
>>> weird file names. Here is the output from cmd line:
>>>
>>> # ls -l
>>> ls: cannot access =jm°£û≈,.1/¡: No such file or directory
>>> ls: cannot access íz╫ƒuìöm.«/e: No such file or directory
>>> ls: cannot access kε╔┌*╧┘á.?/╧: No such file or directory
>>> ...
>>>
>>> dmesg output:
>>>
>>> [5372932.625012] FAT: Filesystem panic (dev sdd1)
>>> [5372932.625016]     invalid access to FAT (entry 0x0000f7ab)
>>> ....
>>> [5374942.645072] FAT: Filesystem panic (dev sdd1)
>>> [5374942.645075]     fat_bmap_cluster: request beyond EOF (i_pos 8268)
>>
>> Hm, up to date Lenny with 5374942 seconds uptime?
>>
>> Maybe you should reboot after you do an update? Not sure how update
>> works but if it only changes the files, and not the images of running
>> kernel or processes... And if you do several updates over 2 months
>> period with no reboot... ??
> 
> I usually reboot after kernel updates, however it's another story. Same
> results on fresh Squeeze box with 2 hours of uptime.

You can try to copy your FAT filesystem using dd to another device and
see if this is a hardware / driver problem or FAT support problem.
You can also try to access this FAT filesystem using yet another Linux
instance --- some live CD for example.

Is your FAT support compiled into the kernel or you use a kernel module?

-- 
Eisenbits - proven software solutions: http://www.eisenbits.com/
OpenPGP: DFD9 0146 3794 9CF6 17EA  D63F DBF5 8AA8 3B31 FE8A

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: