Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!constellation!osuunx.ucc.okstate.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!pipex!sunic!news.chalmers.se!cs.chalmers.se!mumrik!sparud
From: sparud@cs.chalmers.se (Jan Sparud)
Subject: Mysterious disk problems
Message-ID: <SPARUD.93May12145826@mumrik.cs.chalmers.se>
Lines: 89
Sender: news@cs.chalmers.se (News administrator)
Organization: Dept. of CS, Chalmers, Sweden
Date: Wed, 12 May 1993 13:58:26 GMT
I have bought a second disk, a Conner Peripherals 3361 (340 MB, IDE).
My first disk is a Maxtor 7120A (120MB, IDE). The disktab entry for
the new disk is as follows:
CP3361: \
ty=winchester:dt=ESDI:se#512:nt#14:ns#17:nc#2794:rm#3600: \
pa#622846:oa#0:ba#8192:fa#1024:ta=4.2BSD: \
pb#42126:ob#622846:tb=swap: \
pc#664972:oc#0: \
pd#664972:od#0:
IDE_CONF gives: 2794 cyls, 14 heads and 17 secs.
I have DOS and 386BSD(0.1 + pk 0.2.2) installed on the first disk,
and will use the second disk entirely for 386BSD.
Here is what I have done to prepare the disk:
disklabel -w -r wd1 CP3361
No problems, disklabel -r wd1 gives the following:
...
4 partitions
# size offset fstype [fsize bsize cpg]
a: 622846 0 4.2BSD 1024 8192 16 # (Cyl. 0 - 2616)
b: 42126 622846 swap # (Cyl. 2617 - 2793)
c: 664972 0 unused 0 0 # (Cyl. 0 - 2793)
d: 664972 0 unused 0 0 # (Cyl. 0 - 2793)
Next, newfs /dev/rwd1a.
Still no problems. Here is the output:
/dev/rwd1a: 622846 sectors in 2617 cylinders of 14 tracks, 17 sectors
318.9MB in 164 cyl groups (16 c/g, 1.95 MB/g, 448 i/g)
Super block backups (for fsck -b # ) at:
32, 3872, ....
Ok, let's test the file system:
fsck /dev/rwd1a
** /dev/rwd1a
** Last Mounted on
** Phase 1 - Check Blocks and Sizes
** Phase 2 - Check Pathnames
** Phase 3 - Check Connectivity
** Phase 4 - Check Reference Counts
** Phase 5 - Check Cyl groups
BLK(S) MISSING IN BIT MAPS
SALVAGE [yn] n
1 files, 1 used, 299595 free (19 frags, 37447 blocks, 0.0% fragmentation)
Strange. The file system should be consistent immediately after it
has been created, shouldn't it? Maybe I should add that I have tested
the disk with two different test programs under DOS with no problems.
If I run fsck several times, I sometimes get the error message:
BAD SUPER BLOCK: VALUES IN SUPER BLOCK DISAGREE WITH THOSE IN FIRST ALTERNATE
I have looked in the code for disklabel and newfs for some possible bug.
No luck. I have also looked in wd.c. It contains some constant timeout
values for loops that seems dangerous for faster computers.
I have a 486DX2-66. Could it be the problem? I can't decrease the
clock frequency on my computer; the turbo button just toggles the
caches on/off.
I have searched the news in 386BSD groups and the FAQ for related
questions, but haven't seen any.
I would be very grateful if someone could shed some light on this,
preferrably by e-mail.
Configuration:
486DX2-66 motherboard, 256KB cache, 2 VESA LB slots, Symphony chipset
20MB RAM (I have tested with 16MB, so it's not the DMA wraparound problem)
Standard IDE disk controller (I have tested another, with the same result)
Disks: see above
Cirrus Logic 5426 LB graphics card
---
Jan Sparud sparud@cs.chalmers.se
Department of Computer Science +46 31 7721006
Chalmers University of Technology
Gothenburg, Sweden