From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Fri, 16 Mar 2007 08:15:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from donner.stsci.edu (donner.stsci.edu [130.167.251.65]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id l2GFFM6p030986 for ; Fri, 16 Mar 2007 08:15:24 -0700 Message-ID: <45FAB480.908@stsci.edu> Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 11:15:12 -0400 From: Thomas Walker MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Should xfs_repair take this long? References: <45F92D8C.3090708@stsci.edu> <20070315150422.7bc5d178@harpe.intellique.com> <45F952F2.6000008@stsci.edu> <20070315231031.GP6095633@melbourne.sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20070315231031.GP6095633@melbourne.sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: David Chinner Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com I see in other posts that "parted" is sometimes a culprit in these problems. Indeed, in my case I did use "parted" to create a gpt partition table on these xfs volumes and I was asked my parted to use the secondary signature. --- snip --- i also remember something about parted (maybe...) finding a backup gpt signature at the end of a disk, and "helpfully" copying it over the front end if so. This was a bug. sgi guys do you remember? But for this one has to invoke parted, and commit the operations done, am I right? if I recall, even invoking parted could do this. --- snip --- So maybe I got bit the same way. parted may be overwritten something at the head of the volume. Is there any way to repair the super block though? It seems that everyone agrees xfs can't do anything until it has a super block somewhere and I don't seem to have one. If there's no way to repair, then what about recovery? I see mention of possibly doing an xfs dump to another disk, reformat the original volume, and then xfs restore back. Is there any online procedure for how to do that if it applies to me here? Thomas Walker David Chinner wrote: >On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 10:06:42AM -0400, Thomas Walker wrote: > > >> The terminal shows a lot of "." dots running across the screen >>quickly, and every few hours it says this; >> >> >>.....................................................found candidate >>secondary superblock... >>unable to verify superblock, continuing... >>found candidate secondary superblock... >>unable to verify superblock, continuing... >> >> > >The primary superblock is not good, and it's trying to find a valid >secondary superblock. Doesn't sound promising so far - reapir can't >start until a valid superblok is found.... > > > >