I run an upgrade and an update on a lucid lynx beta 2. --- got no problems. but about the filesystems i have some questions because it seems for me that at every system boot the system will run an fsck. somtimes it's shown up, somtimes not. but in /var/log/messages and in syslog
I have always following messages ( occured in beta 2 too ).
But first before i continue - here my disk layout:
And here my filesystem types:
This is my problem because those values are seems to be static ! ( note: this partiton is mounted but not in use ) and last not least: the drive is an external usb scsi disk. but on the other side lucid lynx is running fine on my box.
I have dual boot system..i.e, windows XP and ubuntu 9.10(insatlled side by side). when i try to boot ubuntu, Im gettin sh:grub > prompt
I am getting something like this.. root mount file system failed.. ext2 ext3 ext4 ....... kernel panic message and hanged at kenelthreadhelpper+ what can i do.. I cant reinstall ubuntu again.. Because I have installed nany application there..
During the file system check of an ext3 partition at boot I get the following output:
The super-block could not be read or does not describe a correct ext2 filesystem. If the device is still valid and it really contains an ext2 filesystem (and not swap or ufs or something else), then the superblock is corrupt, and you might try running e2fsck with an alternate super-block:
I'm then forced to login in as root and given the following prompt:
I'm reluctant to do as advised by the output and run e2fsck -b because it is not an ext2 filesystem.
Although I can still enter runlevel 5, it doesn't seem to recognise mouse and keyboard input in KDE so my system is effectively redundant at the mo. For this reason any short term workarounds are welcome, but a fix is needed. This problem is part of a longer saga to do with recovering a Windows Vista installation which started failing to boot. I have used both Vista and SUSE tools to try and recover my bootloader to no avail, and this has been the result. If more detail about this is needed please ask and I can explain what I have done.
I have installed ubuntu to my pc. i made 3 partitions. one for system, one for data and one for swap. two of them were ext4. after some time i have reinstalled ubuntu again. but this time i didn't put to format the second partition, but just mount it using ext4. after that i cannot open my files. checked with gparted shows that 2GB used, but with df 188MB. and in properties writes ext3/ext4 filesystem. i used chown, chgrp but didn't help. please help, these data are ver important. i cannot lose them.
Is that possible, I mean when I upgrade F10 to F11 with yum upgrade is there a way to 'upgrade' the filesystem to ext4 for example (with the exception of boot partition)? Or I have to reinstall fedora like new?
While changing the filesystem can I do it by parts? what I mean is for example: I have 2 partitions like '/' and '/home' with ext3, so I backup data in '/home', change '/' to ext4 then mv files from '/home' to '/' and change '/home' to ext4 and finally mv those files from '/' to '/home'. Is that possible?
I have been having problems with filesystem corruption on my eeepc 1000H for a long time now. I have tried using different filesystems, kernels and distributions (arch, slackware) to no effect. I am starting to grow suspicious that this problem lies somewhere else, as I haven't seen anyone else having similar problems in such a variety of scenarios.
I have tried testing my ram using memtest86+, didn't come up with anything after a full run through. I also have tried using e2fsck -c to check for bad blocks, it finds none. I had a go at using smartctl but wasn't really sure what I was doing. I did a long test and it came up with nothing anyway.
This problem is in addition to the problems I've been having with my intel graphics chip and KMS. A lot of the time there are lockups when booting into X, which can only be gotten out of by a hard reset. This is sometimes what causes the original filesystem errors. I've stopped messing around with KMS for now to eliminate this but my current system in unbootable. I'm guessing my disk is wrecked but have as yet seen no definitive proof. Can anyone recommend anything that I should do?
I am currently on ext4 with a custom kernel 2.6.33-rc6 (the stock kernel shipping with slackware does not have the elantech extension for psmouse included). When I was using arch, I was just using the stock kernels.
I got a problem booting ubuntu 10.4 RC but i solved it by replacing root partirion uuid in grub boot menu then I disapled totally uuid passing to linux from /etc/default/grub . but something else i noticed why grub choosed insmod=ext2 why not ext4 specially I use now ext4 .I tried by editing the grub boot menu replacing "insmod=ext2" by "insmod=ext4" it booted and the three lines error during booting that i used to see them science ubuntu 9.10 totally disappeared . really I dont understand can anybody explane for me.and if what i did was right ,can anybody tell me how to make grub always and permenantly detect ext4 as ext4 not as ext2.
I had 5.4 machine. Upgraded to 5.5 today via yum upgrade. All went fine. Rebooted. Wanted to convert root partition to ext4 (I have three partitions: /boot, / and swap). All of them on software RAID 1 (root is /dev/md2). I did the following for converting
yum install e4fsprogs tune2fs -O extents,uninit_bg,dir_index /dev/md2 nano /etc/fstab # I indicated here that my /dev/md2 is of ext4
I am planning on dual-booting Windows XP and Ubuntu on a new laptop, and because I have a program that lets me mount an ext2 filesystem on Windows, I was thinking of installing Ubuntu with ext2 instead of ext3. I am concerned, however, that it might open up a security risk for my Ubuntu partition. Would this cause a problem? (In case it's relevant, I use AVG Free antivirus in Windows.)
I use 8GB USB sticks for backup of Ubuntu 10.04. I have had a variety of problems with ext3 format (security tar file not readable, etc) and have reformatted to ext2, so far without a problem.
But - am I missing something by not using ext3 (or even ext4)? Should I be sticking with ext3 and try to resolve the problems - bearing in mind that as the USB stick is my backup I need it to be secure!
I would like to convert my /tmp and /boot partitions from Ext3 to Ext2 on my Arch Linux setup. I don't see any use in having journaling for either partition. I want to make sure that I have the right steps lined up so could someone verify that this is correct (from a live cd):
Code: #sudo tune2fs -O ^has_journal /dev/sda7 #sudo e2fsck /dev/sda7 #sudo tune2fs -O ^has_journal /dev/sda5 #sudo e2fsck /dev/sda5 I then edit /etc/fstab to reflect these changes (ext3 to ext2 for both lines)
Does it matter what order I do it in (/dev/sda7 is /tmp and /dev/sda5 is /boot).
I have a new Vertex2 Solid State Drive. When I try to install any distributions, formating the drive in EXT3 or EXT4 (or LUKS with EXT3, or EXT4). My hard drive times out during a copy process. (OpenSUSE 11.2 for example would crash after the 2nd file of X11. Debian got ~12% done when it crashed.)
We are running debian off of an SD card and want to know what's best for /var?
- Plenty of room on 2GB SD card, so do we, make /var as large as possible (everything else is read only) to reduce block overwrites, or do we make /var as small as possible, hopefully reducing the load 'pdflush' places on the 200 Mhz system?
That said, why not ext2? Is there damage that can happen in /var due to insta-crash or power loss that will prevent proper system function? We heard ext4 is more optimized, but ext4 on 2.6.29, not sure.
If we must use a journaled file system for /var, then which is lowest load on system, or "better": jfs, ext3, jffs2 ...
I want to convert my swap space 8GB to usable formatHere is the output of sudo fdisk -l command$sudo fdisk -lDisk /dev/sda: 80.0 GB, 80026361856 bytes255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 9729 cylindersUnits = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytesDisk identifier: 0x26af26ae
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System /dev/sda1 * 1 2295 18434556 7 HPFS/NTFS /dev/sda2 2296 9728 59705572+ f W95 Ext'd (LBA)
I have a question, i accidentally formatted an lvm volume as ext2 after creating it. Then of course, we copied a ton of data to it before I realized it was ext2. (I guess ext2 was the default when using mkfs without a -t) Anyway - can I just use tune2fs -j on the LVM just like I would a /dev/sdx device?
i m not able to copy a file over 16 gigs on an EXT2 or EXT3 partition. Is there a way to do this. I even tried to split my iso file too. I splitted my iso file in 4 files then copy them on the ext2 or ext3 partition. But as soon as I was trying to join the files together it never went over 16 gigs. Actually it stops at 16,843,020 kb exactly. is there a limit for those partitions or is there an another way to see my 20gigs iso file in one piece?
I am student of MCS and working on final project. I am the user of windows xp. I am new in Linux. I am working on a project that titles "Hard disk data Recovery of ext2 and ext3 in linux". In windows, including dos.h and bios.h header files in program of c language I can send interrupt to bios and access most of the devices like parallel port, hard disks etc. But problem is that there is no bios.h and dos.h files in gcc. Now how can I access my hard drive using c program. How can I call int13h interrupt in linux or there is any other function in the linux to access the hard disk. In fact I want to access sectors of my hard disk using c language program. How can I do it?
I have ext3 partition mounted on /mnt/shared/ as follows
Permissions above are of the actual mounted fs.
Goal is to have all files created on the fs 1) to belong to group 'users' 2) to have this groups permissions set to rw (rwx for directories) so that all users who belong to group 'users' have full read/write access to data and everyone else to have only read access.
Now because of setgid bit (s) in group permissions every file created has group 'users' and additionally setgid bit is set for directories. Because every users umask by default (on my system) is set to 0022 all created files will have permissions 644 for ordinary files and 755 for directories.
Net result of above means that users A and B who both belong to group 'users' won't be able to modify files created by the other.
So how can I make files created on the fs to be created always with umask 0002 WITHOUT changing default umask for users that is used elsewhere (like in their home directory) ?
I want to install Ubuntu to a USB Flash drive (so I have my Desktop everywhere and can customize it as I want). I'm still choosing what's the best filesystem for the USB; Ext2 with no journaling or Ext4 with journaling but performance increase? I know that journaling will probably reduce the life of the USB flash drive dramatically, so is Ext2 the obvious choice? Or is it a bad idea to install Linux (Ubuntu probably) on a USB Flash drive? I tried running a live CD from the USB drive, but it wasn't very customizable - which is the point of carrying my OS with me.
Odd question I know and this is more out of curiosity then out of real usage. Background:
I have a bit of a script that creates a xen image and within I check if the partition that is given contains a filesystem and if this filesystem has inodes in use. (This is all under ext2). After one run of the script which I had to abort there was a filesystem on the partition and my script refused to create a new one. Simple solution was just to create a new filesystem on the very partition and the script went on. I also thought of recreating the partition but this would not be very applicable on a running system with the partition on the same disk like root paritition.
So I'm looking for a way to delete a filesystem or at least set it's used inode number to zero.
I just rebuild the kernel for slackware 13, everything works, but root file system which is ext3 is mounted as ext2. Normally I've build ext3, ext4 and so on as modules, not in the kernel... but if I do this, then the kernel mounts the file system as ext2, which is build in the kernel. I also modified rc.modules so I can make sure that ext3,ext4,jbd are loaded, but it doesnt work.
This problem has arrived again.......I tried the same solution but didn't work out...the problem is described below.
I use Ubuntu 9.10 .
I did this in Ubuntu 9.10 live CD.
quote from terminal :-
ubuntu@ubuntu:~$ sudo mkdir /win ubuntu@ubuntu:~$ sudo mount /dev/sda5 /win ubuntu@ubuntu:~$ sudo mkdir /vdisk ubuntu@ubuntu:~$ sudo mount -o loop /win/ubuntu/disks/root.disk /vdisk
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 filesystem (and not swap or ufs or something else), then the superblock is corrupt, and you might try running e2fsck with an alternate superblock:
Some say because the record is not in a fixed length so rec_len is the real record length. Why is the length of the array `name' not fixed? I thought C arrays like this should be fixed length. C99 has variable-length arrays, does this structure count on C99?