You people are resurrecting a thread that has been dead five months.
Missed that! Good point.
On giving this more thought, The thread title is very specific,
e2fsck -b 8193 <device> error after win 7 installation
If someone has a similar problem and goes to the trouble of searching the forums before posting.
I believe the advice given here
After you did fdisk -l (to list the parts), did you try fsck.ext4 -v /dev/sda1 (or the equivalent) to see where the superblocks alternates are?
Then you can try each one in order (until success) with
e2fsk -b xxxxx /dev/sda1 (where xxxxx =s the alternate block number?
by ‘WeedMIC’ To be worth adding to the thread. Further posts were probably not needed at that stage.
@ WeedMIC, I notice its your first post here, welcome to openSUSE forums.
On 2011-01-01 06:36, dvhenry wrote:
>
>>> You people are resurrecting a thread that has been dead five months.
>> Missed that! Good point.
> On giving this more thought, The thread title is very specific,> e2fsck -b 8193 <device> error
> after win 7 installation If someone has a similar problem and goes to the trouble of searching
> the forums before posting.
It is possible, but that could never be determined. The error message
usually gives several error possibilities, which you have to verify
manually later. If I remember correctly, the message is also given if you
try e2fsck on a non-extX filesystem.
I told the OP to verify if the partition was broken by using fsck, but not
repair and wait for comments.
But he did the fsck on a mounted partition! He ignored the messages given
by fsck, and went ahead - at which point I quitted. Useless to give written
instructions to follow to somebody that does not read. :-/
Perhaps somebody else would have more patience, or written the explanations
better than me. I did what I could and the result was disastrous.
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 11.2 x86_64 “Emerald” at Telcontar)
Yes I noticed it was an old thread that someone had renewed for some reason. There’ve been other threads resurrected after months of dormancy.
On 2011-01-01 18:36, dvhenry wrote:
>> mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/sda2I have never seen fsck run e2fsck on an NTFS file system, Why would that
> happen?
Please put an empty line between the old text and your response, I have to
guess where you start. So, guessing, the above is really:
>> mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/sda2
> I have never seen fsck run e2fsck on an NTFS file system, Why would that
> happen?
I don’t know exactly why, but it happened to me this week. After several
power failures, during the manual repair fsck tried to check one ext3
partition as xfs or reiserfs, or the other way round, I forget which. When
there is something broken on the partition, the autodetect may fail and try
the wrong type, which then fails not finding the structures it expects to
and fails. Or worse, it tries to repair them, which would be destructive
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 11.2 x86_64 “Emerald” at Telcontar)
Please put an empty line between the old text and your response, I have to
guess where you start. So, guessing, the above is really:
I didn’t realise that.
I don’t know exactly why, but it happened to me this week. After several
power failures, during the manual repair fsck tried to check one ext3
partition as xfs or reiserfs, or the other way round, I forget which. When
there is something broken on the partition, the autodetect may fail and try
the wrong type, which then fails not finding the structures it expects to
and fails. Or worse, it tries to repair them, which would be destructive
That makes sense.
The method used by the OP of ‘jotting down’ and typing the error message is itself at risk of error, to me the OPs problem makes sense if /dev/sda2 was a typo and was meant to be /dev/sda3.
However, as you mentioned this thread is old, analysing the problem now serves no real purpose.
On 2011-01-02 02:36, dvhenry wrote:
>
>> Please put an empty line between the old text and your response, I have
>> to
>> guess where you start. So, guessing, the above is really:I didn’t realise that.
Mmm. It is not that, it happened again. I just checked that it shows
alright in the web forum, but badly via the nntp gateway. No idea why.
> The method used by the OP of ‘jotting down’ and typing the error
> message is itself at risk of error, to me the OPs problem makes sense if
> /dev/sda2 was a typo and was meant to be /dev/sda3.
Who knows…
> However, as you mentioned this thread is old, analysing the problem now
> serves no real purpose.
Exactly 
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 11.2 x86_64 “Emerald” at Telcontar)
> However, as you mentioned this thread is old, analysing the problem now
> serves no real purpose.
Exactly 
Ah! I should been more accurate and satated ‘further analysing’.
I stand by my comment that I believe the person who reopened this thread added a worthwhile post!
I can be stubborn! perhaps we should agree to disagree?
On 2011-01-02 03:36, dvhenry wrote:
>
>>> However, as you mentioned this thread is old, analysing the problem
>> now
>>> serves no real purpose.
>>
>> Exactly
>>
>
> Ah! I should been more accurate and satated ‘further analysing’.
I would have said the same :-p
> I stand by my comment that I believe the person who reopened this
> thread added a worthwhile post!
Yes, but I don’t know if that was the problem.
> I can be stubborn! perhaps we should agree to disagree?
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 11.2 x86_64 “Emerald” at Telcontar)