[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bc77e9fddac46b6a67f715a458190205@imap.dd24.net>
Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 13:47:41 +0000
From: Christoph Anton Mitterer <calestyo@...entia.net>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: mounting ext3 with another superblock doesn't work?
On Mon, 9 May 2011 15:10:27 +0200, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> wrote:
> Well, the block size is most likely the same (4 KB) in both the old
and
> the new fs (unless you tinkered with it but I don't expect that). That
> defines size of a block group and thus position of inodes, bitmaps, etc.
> Another variable is a number of inodes (per group). If you have an old
> superblock you can compare the old and the new number of inodes and you
> can be sure. Otherwise you rely on whether the math in the mkfs with
which
> you've originally created the fs is the same as the math in your current
> mkfs (and you didn't specify any special options regarding this)...
Well I didn't change them but maybe Debian has modified the defaults in
mke2fs.conf since I created the fs initially.
inode_size = 256 could be a candidate. Unfortunately I don't remember
which Debian/e2fsprogs I've used to create the fs originally.
Was this ever set to 128 (i mean as a default for e2fsprogs itself, when
it was not set in mke2fs.conf)?
If the values would have actually changed, wouldn't this mean that all
data was then gone?
Cheers,
Chris
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists