Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!nott!bnrgate!bnr.co.uk!pipex!sunic!isgate!veda.is!adam From: adam@veda.is (Adam David) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions Subject: Re: Help with restoring my drive Message-ID: <C8BM7q.HM8@veda.is> Date: 8 Jun 93 20:57:11 GMT References: <Mg4f2JW00WB54AlJYb@andrew.cmu.edu> <1993Jun7.215922.6403@fcom.cc.utah.edu> Organization: Veda Systems, Iceland Lines: 26 terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) writes: >2) Using dd with the appropriate block size and count and skip, get > a copy of one of the backup superblocks into a file, and using > the reverse of the process, write over the (now corrupt) block > at the front of your disk. What's wrong with good old 'fsck -b ...' or even straight 'fsck' for that matter (sorry I forgot the partition boundaries are screwed). Before I got round to crippling my system it was trashing superblocks 10 times a day, and I never had to use dd for that particular purpose. Actually, shouldn't 'fsck -b ...' do the job of fixing the superblock even if the filesystem is totally munged? About writing a new disklabel, what exactly is preventing that from happening? >2) Go to the mkfs sources, and, given the options used when the > disk was built (or, hope beyond hope, the defaults for the disk > partition of that size and start/end/block geometry), calculate > by hand where the backup superblocks would have been put. try 'newfs -N ...' Of course that probably presupposes that newfs was used in the first place. -- adam@veda.is