@Peter, @Janne: Thanks for the infos. Newfs seemed promising but it
seems like the disk is beyond repair :(.
I did newfs -N and got quite a few location of superblocks:
Then I tried
fsck_ffs -b #blockid /dev/rsd1c
No matter which blockid i tried, it always gave the same BAD SUPER
BLOCK: MAGIC NUMBER WRONG.
I guess I would have to wipe it clean from here.
On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 2:06 PM Janne Johansson <icepic.dz@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Den ons 1 dec. 2021 kl 09:12 skrev Sandeep Gupta <gupta.sandeep@gmail.com>:
> > I am running OpenBSD 7.0 on RPi4. I accidentally removed the usb
> > cable connecting the sata ssd to the RPi4.
> > Well OpenBSD froze and upon reboot I got the very comforting
> > Synchronous Exception message.
> > Thankfully, I have another RPi4 running OpenBSD. I can mount the
> > corrupted disk ( did the necessary backups). I did fsck on all the
> > partitions.
> > All partitions except for /dev/rsd1c and /dev/rsd1i are clean.
> > For /dev/rsd1c , I get "BAD SUPER BLOCK: MAGIC NUMBER WRONG".
>
> The "c" partition is not meant to hold filesystems, it is the device
> used to talk to "the whole disk" for fdisk and such tools.
>
> > For /dev/rsd1i, I get "UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY".
>
> If you had any non-bsd filesystems (like a small MSDOS/FAT partition
> for booting/firmware/arm blob stuff), it will end up as sdXi (and
> j,k,l, and so on if you have more than one foreign fs), so if that is
> the case, then it is not unexpected to see FFS' fsck have issues with
> FAT filesystems.
>
> --
> May the most significant bit of your life be positive.
Wednesday, December 01, 2021
Re: dd: /dev/rsd1c: device not configured
On Wed, Dec 1, 2021 at 4:56 AM Nick Holland <nick@holland-consulting.net> wrote:
> And yeah, he really wants you to UNDERSTAND what you are doing.
> Total jerk, I know.
I got confused by the MAKEDEV, thinking I have to create a required disk.
In fact, using one of the disks in hw.disknames worked as expected.
> The obvious errors you have are you are trying to use devices you don't
> actually have on your machine, even though you have a dev file by a
> suggestive name. My machine here has /dev entries for sd0 to sd9, and
> wd0 to wd3, and there are no wd devices and only three sd devices.
Clear, I thought that /dev/ (in install kernel) was populated by
effective hardware, but reading your explaination is now clearer to me
what is happening.
>
> I'm a little suspicious of that sd0 in your /dev directory -- was it
> there all along, or did it just pop up when you dd'd to /dev/rsd0c and
It was already there, and I'm installing amd64 iso image on a virtual
machine with only one IDE controller (thus wd).
I've also created a virtual machine without any IDE/SATA disk, and
entering the shell there's a /dev/rsd0c and all other partitions.
Thanks,
Luca
> And yeah, he really wants you to UNDERSTAND what you are doing.
> Total jerk, I know.
I got confused by the MAKEDEV, thinking I have to create a required disk.
In fact, using one of the disks in hw.disknames worked as expected.
> The obvious errors you have are you are trying to use devices you don't
> actually have on your machine, even though you have a dev file by a
> suggestive name. My machine here has /dev entries for sd0 to sd9, and
> wd0 to wd3, and there are no wd devices and only three sd devices.
Clear, I thought that /dev/ (in install kernel) was populated by
effective hardware, but reading your explaination is now clearer to me
what is happening.
>
> I'm a little suspicious of that sd0 in your /dev directory -- was it
> there all along, or did it just pop up when you dd'd to /dev/rsd0c and
It was already there, and I'm installing amd64 iso image on a virtual
machine with only one IDE controller (thus wd).
I've also created a virtual machine without any IDE/SATA disk, and
entering the shell there's a /dev/rsd0c and all other partitions.
Thanks,
Luca
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)