Re: mounting LVM partitions fails after etch upgrade
On 5/6/07, Douglas Allan Tutty <dtutty@porchlight.ca> wrote:
On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 07:27:26PM +0200, David Fuchs wrote:
> I mounted (read-only) some of the virtual volumes, to see if the data is
> still there... it seems as if there is some 'offset' on the file system,
> i.e.
> when looking at some file it contains stuff that should be in a completely
> different file... or it tells me attempt to access beyond end of device.
I gues this confirms that these filesystems are corrupted.
>
> during the 'normal' boot process (i.e. init=/bin/sh not set) this is the
> exact error I get:
>
> [/sbin/fsck.ext3 (1) -- /var ] fsck.ext3 -a -C0 /dev/mapper/volg1-b
> fsck.ext3: no such file or directory while trying to open
> /dev/mapper/volg1-b
> /dev/mapper/volg1-b:
> The superblock could not be read or does not describe a correct ext2
> filesystem. if the device is valid and it really contains an ext2 filsystem
> (and not swap or ufs or something else), then the superblock is corrupt, and
> you might try running e2fsck with an alternate superblock:
> e2fsck -b 8192 <device>
What happens if you now boot single? Does your root filesystem get
fsck'd cleanly? This is the first step. Once you can cleanly get into
a single-user root shell life is much better. From here you can again
verify that the md arrays and lvs are in good shape automatically and
from there you can fsck the filesystems without having them mounted at
all.
yes, / on md0 does get fsck'd cleanly, whether in single boot or
'normal' boot. I can get into a root shell w/o any filesystem related
errors.
the problem are all other mounts, which reside on LVM on md1. fsck
tells me that there are hundreds of inodes with thousands of illegal
blocks.
I never had any problems related to fs corruption, and I don't see how
a simple system upgrade could cause this. so, I'm still thinking that
something with the raid or lvm setup is screwed, but I don't know what
or why.
as you can probably tell I have never dealt with fixing a broken fs,
but I'm afraid that running e2fsck would completely screw my data.
what I primarily want is not a fs w/o errors but rescue as much data
as possible...
thanks,
- Dave.
Note that e2fsck can take several passes. Also, you don't want the -a
option (which is the backward-compatible version of -p) which exists
with error code 4 if a problem would require human intervention, since
you are there to intervene and don't want it to exit.
Let us know how you progress.
Doug.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: