Take the 2-minute tour ×
Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I've got this external USB-Disk:

kaefert@blechmobil:~$ lsusb -s 2:3
Bus 002 Device 003: ID 0bc2:3320 Seagate RSS LLC 

As can be seen in this dmesg output, there is some problem that prevents that disk from beeing mounted:

kaefert@blechmobil:~$ dmesg
...
[  113.084079] usb 2-1: new high-speed USB device number 3 using ehci_hcd
[  113.217783] usb 2-1: New USB device found, idVendor=0bc2, idProduct=3320
[  113.217787] usb 2-1: New USB device strings: Mfr=2, Product=3, SerialNumber=1
[  113.217790] usb 2-1: Product: Expansion Desk
[  113.217792] usb 2-1: Manufacturer: Seagate
[  113.217794] usb 2-1: SerialNumber: NA4J4N6K
[  113.435404] usbcore: registered new interface driver uas
[  113.455315] Initializing USB Mass Storage driver...
[  113.468051] scsi5 : usb-storage 2-1:1.0
[  113.468180] usbcore: registered new interface driver usb-storage
[  113.468182] USB Mass Storage support registered.
[  114.473105] scsi 5:0:0:0: Direct-Access     Seagate  Expansion Desk   070B PQ: 0 ANSI: 6
[  114.474342] sd 5:0:0:0: [sdb] 732566645 4096-byte logical blocks: (3.00 TB/2.72 TiB)
[  114.475089] sd 5:0:0:0: [sdb] Write Protect is off
[  114.475092] sd 5:0:0:0: [sdb] Mode Sense: 43 00 00 00
[  114.475959] sd 5:0:0:0: [sdb] Write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled, doesn't support DPO or FUA
[  114.477093] sd 5:0:0:0: [sdb] 732566645 4096-byte logical blocks: (3.00 TB/2.72 TiB)
[  114.501649]  sdb: sdb1
[  114.502717] sd 5:0:0:0: [sdb] 732566645 4096-byte logical blocks: (3.00 TB/2.72 TiB)
[  114.504354] sd 5:0:0:0: [sdb] Attached SCSI disk
[  116.804408] EXT4-fs (sdb1): ext4_check_descriptors: Checksum for group 3976 failed (47397!=61519)
[  116.804413] EXT4-fs (sdb1): group descriptors corrupted!
...

So I went and fired up my favorite partition manager - gparted, and told it to verify and repair the partition sdb1. This made gparted call e2fsck (version 1.42.4 (12-Jun-2012))

e2fsck -f -y -v /dev/sdb1

Although gparted called e2fsck with the "-v" option, sadly it doesn't show me the output of my e2fsck process (bugreport https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=467925 )

I started this whole thing on Sunday (2012-11-04_2200) evening, so about 48 hours ago, this is what htop says about it now (2012-11-06-1900):

  PID USER      PRI  NI  VIRT   RES   SHR S CPU% MEM%   TIME+  Command
 3704 root       39  19 1560M 1166M   768 R 98.0 19.5 42h56:43 e2fsck -f -y -v /dev/sdb1

Now I found a few posts on the internet that discuss e2fsck running slow, for example:

http://gparted-forum.surf4.info/viewtopic.php?id=13613

where they write that its a good idea to see if the disk is just that slow because maybe its damaged, and I think these outputs tell me that this is not the case in my case:

kaefert@blechmobil:~$ sudo hdparm -tT /dev/sdb
/dev/sdb:
 Timing cached reads:   3562 MB in  2.00 seconds = 1783.29 MB/sec
 Timing buffered disk reads:  82 MB in  3.01 seconds =  27.26 MB/sec


kaefert@blechmobil:~$ sudo hdparm /dev/sdb
/dev/sdb:
 multcount     =  0 (off)
 readonly      =  0 (off)
 readahead     = 256 (on)
 geometry      = 364801/255/63, sectors = 5860533160, start = 0

However, although I can read quickly from that disk, this disk speed doesn't seem to be used by e2fsck, considering tools like gkrellm or iotop or this:

kaefert@blechmobil:~$ iostat -x
Linux 3.2.0-2-amd64 (blechmobil)    2012-11-06  _x86_64_    (2 CPU)

avg-cpu:  %user   %nice %system %iowait  %steal   %idle
          14,24   47,81   14,63    0,95    0,00   22,37

Device:         rrqm/s   wrqm/s     r/s     w/s    rkB/s    wkB/s avgrq-sz avgqu-sz   await r_await w_await  svctm  %util
sda               0,59     8,29    2,42    5,14    43,17   160,17    53,75     0,30   39,80    8,72   54,42   3,95   2,99
sdb             137,54     5,48    9,23    0,20   587,07    22,73   129,35     0,07    7,70    7,51   16,18   2,17   2,04

Now I researched a little bit on how to find out what e2fsck is doing with all that processor time, and I found the tool strace, which gives me this:

kaefert@blechmobil:~$ sudo strace -p3704
lseek(4, 41026998272, SEEK_SET)         = 41026998272
write(4, "\212\354K[_\361\3nl\212\245\352\255jR\303\354\312Yv\334p\253r\217\265\3567\325\257\3766"..., 4096) = 4096
lseek(4, 48404766720, SEEK_SET)         = 48404766720
read(4, "\7t\260\366\346\337\304\210\33\267j\35\377'\31f\372\252\ffU\317.y\211\360\36\240c\30`\34"..., 4096) = 4096
lseek(4, 41027002368, SEEK_SET)         = 41027002368
write(4, "\232]7Ws\321\352\t\1@[+5\263\334\276{\343zZx\352\21\316`1\271[\202\350R`"..., 4096) = 4096
lseek(4, 48404770816, SEEK_SET)         = 48404770816
read(4, "\17\362r\230\327\25\346//\210H\v\311\3237\323K\304\306\361a\223\311\324\272?\213\tq \370\24"..., 4096) = 4096
lseek(4, 41027006464, SEEK_SET)         = 41027006464
write(4, "\367yy>x\216?=\324Z\305\351\376&\25\244\210\271\22\306}\276\237\370(\214\205G\262\360\257#"..., 4096) = 4096
lseek(4, 48404774912, SEEK_SET)         = 48404774912
read(4, "\365\25\0\21|T\0\21}3t_\272\373\222k\r\177\303\1\201\261\221$\261B\232\3142\21U\316"..., 4096) = 4096
^CProcess 3704 detached

around 16 of these lines every second, so 4 read and 4 write operations every second, which I don't consider to be a lot..

And finally, my question: Will this process ever finish? If those numbers from fseek (48404774912) represent bytes, that would be something like 45 gigabytes, with this beeing a 3 terrabyte disk, which would give me 134 days to go, if the speed stays constant, and e2fsck scans the disk like this completly and only once.

Do you have some advice for me? I have most of the data on that disk elsewhere, but I've put a lot of hours into sorting and merging it to this disk, so I would prefer to getting this disk up and running again, without formatting it anew. I don't think that the hardware is damaged since the disk is only a few months and since I can't see any I/O errors in the dmesg output.

UPDATE: I just looked at the strace output again (2012-11-06_2300), now it looks like this:

lseek(4, 1419860611072, SEEK_SET)       = 1419860611072
read(4, "3#\f\2447\335\0\22A\355\374\276j\204'\207|\217V|\23\245[\7VP\251\242\276\207\317:"..., 4096) = 4096
lseek(4, 43018145792, SEEK_SET)         = 43018145792
write(4, "]\206\231\342Y\204-2I\362\242\344\6R\205\361\324\177\265\317C\334V\324\260\334\275t=\10F."..., 4096) = 4096
lseek(4, 1419860615168, SEEK_SET)       = 1419860615168
read(4, "\262\305\314Y\367\37x\326\245\226\226\320N\333$s\34\204\311\222\7\315\236\336\300TK\337\264\236\211n"..., 4096) = 4096
lseek(4, 43018149888, SEEK_SET)         = 43018149888
write(4, "\271\224m\311\224\25!I\376\16;\377\0\223H\25Yd\201Y\342\r\203\271\24eG<\202{\373V"..., 4096) = 4096
lseek(4, 1419860619264, SEEK_SET)       = 1419860619264
read(4, ";d\360\177\n\346\253\210\222|\250\352T\335M\33\260\320\261\7g\222P\344H?t\240\20\2548\310"..., 4096) = 4096
lseek(4, 43018153984, SEEK_SET)         = 43018153984
write(4, "\360\252j\317\310\251G\227\335{\214`\341\267\31Y\202\360\v\374\307oq\3063\217Z\223\313\36D\211"..., 4096) = 4096

So the numbers in the lseek lines before the reads, like 1419860619264 are already a lot bigger, standing for 1.29 terabytes if those numbers are bytes, so it doesn't seem to be a linear progress on a big scale, maybe there are only some areas that need work, that have big gaps in between them.

UPDATE2: Okey, big disappointment, the numbers are back to very small again (2012-11-07_0720)

lseek(4, 52174548992, SEEK_SET)         = 52174548992
read(4, "\374\312\22\\\325\215\213\23\0357U\222\246\370v^f(\312|f\212\362\343\375\373\342\4\204mU6"..., 4096) = 4096
lseek(4, 46603526144, SEEK_SET)         = 46603526144
write(4, "\370\261\223\227\23?\4\4\217\264\320_Am\246CQ\313^\203U\253\274\204\277\2564n\227\177\267\343"..., 4096) = 4096

so either e2fsck goes over the data multiple times, or it just hops back and forth multiple times. Or my assumption that those numbers are bytes is wrong.

UPDATE3: Since it's mentioned here

http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=282125&page=2

that you can testisk while e2fsck is running, i tried that, though not with a lot of success. When asking testdisk to display the data of my partition, this is what I get:

TestDisk 6.13, Data Recovery Utility, November 2011
Christophe GRENIER <grenier@cgsecurity.org>
http://www.cgsecurity.org
 1 P Linux                    0   4  5 45600  40  8  732566272
Can't open filesystem. Filesystem seems damaged.

And this is what strace currently gives me (2012-11-07_1030)

lseek(4, 212460343296, SEEK_SET)        = 212460343296
read(4, "\315Mb\265v\377Gn \24\f\205EHh\2349~\330\273\203\3375\206\10\r3=W\210\372\352"..., 4096) = 4096
lseek(4, 47347830784, SEEK_SET)         = 47347830784
write(4, "]\204\223\300I\357\4\26\33+\243\312G\230\250\371*m2U\t_\215\265J \252\342Pm\360D"..., 4096) = 4096

UPDATE4: (2012-11-08_0800) Okey, so the e2fsk process failed after something over 78 hours (thats what gparted wrote) and when I tried to make gparted save the details, it stopped responding, took 100% cpu time of one of my cores for a few minutes, and then crashed printing this line in the console:

/usr/sbin/gpartedbin: symbol lookup error: /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/gio/modules/libgioremote-volume-monitor.so: undefined symbol: g_mutex_lock

It crashed before it let me chose a location to save the details, so it didn't even start writing those details to a file. So I've got nothing but a quck glimps at about 5 lines of the e2fsck output which stated something about damaged inodes it was repairing. My guess is that the output of e2fsck was that extremly long that gparted couldn't handle it and crashed when it tried.

This is the strace output of the gparted-bin process in its last minute of running right up until it failed:

http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/1341922/

Now I rebooted my notebook, and I was positively surprised to see this:

[    1.368032] usb 2-1: new high-speed USB device number 2 using ehci_hcd
[    1.501581] usb 2-1: New USB device found, idVendor=0bc2, idProduct=3320
[    1.501585] usb 2-1: New USB device strings: Mfr=2, Product=3, SerialNumber=1
[    1.501588] usb 2-1: Product: Expansion Desk
[    1.501590] usb 2-1: Manufacturer: Seagate
[    1.501592] usb 2-1: SerialNumber: NA4J4N6K
[    1.503691] usbcore: registered new interface driver uas
[    1.504736] Initializing USB Mass Storage driver...
[    1.504822] scsi5 : usb-storage 2-1:1.0
[    1.504898] usbcore: registered new interface driver usb-storage
[    1.504900] USB Mass Storage support registered.
...
[    2.504756] scsi 5:0:0:0: Direct-Access     Seagate  Expansion Desk   070B PQ: 0 ANSI: 6
...
[   13.319905] sd 5:0:0:0: [sdb] 732566645 4096-byte logical blocks: (3.00 TB/2.72 TiB)
[   13.320764] sd 5:0:0:0: [sdb] Write Protect is off
[   13.320768] sd 5:0:0:0: [sdb] Mode Sense: 43 00 00 00
[   13.321644] sd 5:0:0:0: [sdb] Write cache: enabled, read cache: enabled, doesn't support DPO or FUA
[   13.322524] sd 5:0:0:0: [sdb] 732566645 4096-byte logical blocks: (3.00 TB/2.72 TiB)
[   19.563252]  sdb: sdb1
[   19.564818] sd 5:0:0:0: [sdb] 732566645 4096-byte logical blocks: (3.00 TB/2.72 TiB)
[   19.566944] sd 5:0:0:0: [sdb] Attached SCSI disk
...
[  105.080095] EXT4-fs (sdb1): warning: mounting unchecked fs, running e2fsck is recommended
[  105.086041] EXT4-fs (sdb1): mounted filesystem with ordered data mode. Opts: (null)

So he managed to mount the filesystem again, and it looked alright at first glance, but as recommended by the dmesg output above, I started to run e2fsck again, but this time manually without gparted as intermediate:

kaefert@blechmobil:~$ sudo e2fsck -v -p /dev/sdb1
/dev/sdb1 wurde nicht ordnungsgemäß ausgehängt, Prüfung erzwungen.
/dev/sdb1: Doppelter oder unzulässiger Block in Gebrauch!
ext2fs_test_block_bitmap wurde eine unzulässige Blocknummer übergeben #4294954142 for Den Eintrag in der Liste belegter Blöcke verdoppeln
ext2fs_test_block_bitmap wurde eine unzulässige Blocknummer übergeben #4294960577 for Den Eintrag in der Liste belegter Blöcke verdoppeln
ext2fs_test_block_bitmap wurde eine unzulässige Blocknummer übergeben #4294902002 for Den Eintrag in der Liste belegter Blöcke verdoppeln
/dev/sdb1: Mehrfach beansprucht Block(s) in Inode 86114492: 4538368 3365377 3365378 3365379 3365380 ... 
... << endless number of inodes, like millions of inodes, didn't count them though ;) >> ...
55455 9455456 9455457 9455458 9455459 << this is the end of the list >>
/dev/sdb1: (es gibt 6 Inodes, die doppelte/defekte Blocks enthalten.)

/dev/sdb1: Datei /Recordings/.../MVI_8559.MOV (Inode #86114492, Modifikationszeitpunkt Sat Mar 24 20:23:54 2012) 
  hat Block Nr.413455 doppelte Block(s), gemeinsam genutzt mit 1 Datei(en):
/dev/sdb1:  /Recordings/.../MVI_8563.MOV (Inode #86114496, mod time Sat Mar 24 20:23:54 2012)
/dev/sdb1: 

/dev/sdb1: UNERWARTETE INKONSISTENZ; fsck MANUELL AUSFÜHREN
    (d.h. ohne -a oder -p Option)

So I'm gonna do just that, start without the -p parameter now. Since the e2fsck run above just took about 2 hours, I think I'll give you another update in about 2 hours.

kaefert@blechmobil:~$ sudo e2fsck -v /dev/sdb1
e2fsck 1.42.4 (12-Jun-2012)
/dev/sdb1 enthält ein fehlerhaftes Dateisystem, Prüfung erzwungen.
Durchgang 1: Prüfe Inodes, Blocks, und Größen

Doppelter Blocks gefunden... starte Scan nach doppelten Block.
Durchgang 1B: Suche nach doppelten/defekten Blocks
ext2fs_test_block_bitmap wurde eine unzulässige Blocknummer übergeben #4294954142 for Den Eintrag in der Liste belegter Blöcke verdoppeln
ext2fs_test_block_bitmap wurde eine unzulässige Blocknummer übergeben #4294960577 for Den Eintrag in der Liste belegter Blöcke verdoppeln
ext2fs_test_block_bitmap wurde eine unzulässige Blocknummer übergeben #4294902002 for Den Eintrag in der Liste belegter Blöcke verdoppeln
Mehrfach beansprucht Block(s) in Inode 86114492: 4538368 3365377 3365378 3365379 3365380 ... 9455459
Durchgang 1C: Prüfe Verzeichnisse nach Inodes mit doppelten Blocks.
Durchgang 1D: Gleiche doppelte Blocks ab
(es gibt 6 Inodes, die doppelte/defekte Blocks enthalten.)

Datei /Recordings/.../MVI_8559.MOV (Inode #86114492, Modifikationszeitpunkt Sat Mar 24 20:23:54 2012) 
  hat Block Nr.413455 doppelte Block(s), gemeinsam genutzt mit 1 Datei(en):
    /Recordings/.../MVI_8563.MOV (Inode #86114496, mod time Sat Mar 24 20:23:54 2012)
multiply claimed block map<j>? ja
clone_file_block: interner Fehler; dup_blk für 4538368 wurde nicht gefunden

clone_file_block: interner Fehler; dup_blk für 4538368 wurde nicht gefunden

Datei /Recordings/.../MVI_8563.MOV (Inode #86114496, Modifikationszeitpunkt Sat Mar 24 20:23:54 2012) 
  hat Block Nr.413455 doppelte Block(s), gemeinsam genutzt mit 1 Datei(en):
    /Recordings/.../MVI_8559.MOV (Inode #86114492, mod time Sat Mar 24 20:23:54 2012)
Duplizierte Blocks bereits neu zugeordnet bzw. geklont.

Datei /Recordings/.../MVI_8571.MOV (Inode #86114504, Modifikationszeitpunkt Sat Mar 24 22:09:56 2012) 
  hat Block Nr.244958 doppelte Block(s), gemeinsam genutzt mit 1 Datei(en):
    /Recordings/.../MVI_8575.MOV (Inode #86114508, mod time Sat Mar 24 22:09:56 2012)
multiply claimed block map<j>? ja
clone_file_block: interner Fehler; dup_blk für 7999488 wurde nicht gefunden

and now the pattern of the first extremly long run of e2fsck seems to repeat. The strace output looks the same and the gkrellm representation of the disk usage also (see below). and its been about 2 hours since the last output which I've posted above.

gkrellm representation of the disk usage

UPDATE5: (2012-11-08_2130) Okey, so e2fsck has already been running for about 12 hours again and at least 10 of those since the last line I've posted above was printed. I'm afraid this will again take 80 hours to finish (or fail) like it did the first time I saw this pattern.

UPDATE6: (2012-11-09_0653) I've added a few new lines in the console output of my 3rd e2fsck run above (he asked a second question, and now it's back to the pattern described below the output and visualized by that gkrellm screenshot.

UPDATE7: (2012-11-11_1839) Soooo.. It finished. Here are the last few lines of what it printed:

Die Anzahl Verzeichnisse ist falsch für Gruppe #20192 (0, gezählt=1).
Repariere<j>? ja
Die Anzahl freier Inodes ist falsch für Gruppe #20576 (8192, gezählt=8143).
Repariere<j>? ja
Die Anzahl Verzeichnisse ist falsch für Gruppe #20576 (0, gezählt=3).
Repariere<j>? ja
Die Anzahl freier Inodes ist falsch für Gruppe #21472 (8192, gezählt=8182).
Repariere<j>? ja
Die Anzahl Verzeichnisse ist falsch für Gruppe #21472 (0, gezählt=1).
Repariere<j>? ja
Die Anzahl freier Inodes ist falsch (183148563, gezählt=183026594).
Repariere<j>? ja

/dev/sdb1: ***** DATEISYSTEM WURDE VERÄNDERT *****

121950 Inodes sind in Benutzung (0.07%)
    1244 nicht zusammenhängende Dateien (1.0%)
      30 nicht zusammenhängende Verzeichnisse (0.0%)
         # von Inodes mit ind/dind/tind Blöcken: 0/0/0
         Erweiterungstiefe Histogramm: 121817/126
184589222 Blöcke werden benutzt (25.20%)
0 ungültige Blöcke
       4 große Dateien

  119828 reguläre Dateien
    2114 Verzeichnisse
       0 zeichenorientierte Gerätedateien
       0 Blockgerätedateien
       0 Fifos
       9 Verknüpfungen
       0 symbolische Verknüpfungen (0 schnelle symbolische Verknüpfungen)
       0 Sockets
--------
  121397 Dateien

I had to put something on the letter "j" to answer those millions of questions.

And since I did not believe him that its really clean now, I ran it a 4th time, and e2fsck admitted that not everything was right, and he still left himself things todo:

kaefert@blechmobil:~$ sudo e2fsck -f -y -v /dev/sdb1
e2fsck 1.42.4 (12-Jun-2012)
Durchgang 1: Prüfe Inodes, Blocks, und Größen

Doppelter Blocks gefunden... starte Scan nach doppelten Block.
Durchgang 1B: Suche nach doppelten/defekten Blocks
Mehrfach beansprucht Block(s) in Inode 86114492: 4538368 4405248
<< ... removed millions of entries of the same pattern here ... >> 
11648685 11648686
Durchgang 1C: Prüfe Verzeichnisse nach Inodes mit doppelten Blocks.
Durchgang 1D: Gleiche doppelte Blocks ab
(es gibt 6 Inodes, die doppelte/defekte Blocks enthalten.)

Datei /Recordings/.../MVI_8559.MOV (Inode #86114492, Modifikationszeitpunkt Sat Mar 24 20:23:54 2012) 
  hat Block Nr.413455 doppelte Block(s), gemeinsam genutzt mit 1 Datei(en):
    /Recordings/.../MVI_8563.MOV (Inode #86114496, mod time Sat Mar 24 20:23:54 2012)
multiply claimed block map? ja

clone_file_block: interner Fehler; dup_blk für 4538368 wurde nicht gefunden

clone_file_block: interner Fehler; dup_blk für 4538368 wurde nicht gefunden

Datei /Recordings/.../MVI_8563.MOV (Inode #86114496, Modifikationszeitpunkt Sat Mar 24 20:23:54 2012) 
  hat Block Nr.413455 doppelte Block(s), gemeinsam genutzt mit 1 Datei(en):
    /Recordings/.../MVI_8559.MOV (Inode #86114492, mod time Sat Mar 24 20:23:54 2012)
Duplizierte Blocks bereits neu zugeordnet bzw. geklont.

Datei /Recordings/.../MVI_8571.MOV (Inode #86114504, Modifikationszeitpunkt Sat Mar 24 22:09:56 2012) 
  hat Block Nr.244958 doppelte Block(s), gemeinsam genutzt mit 1 Datei(en):
    /Recordings/.../MVI_8575.MOV (Inode #86114508, mod time Sat Mar 24 22:09:56 2012)
multiply claimed block map? ja

clone_file_block: interner Fehler; dup_blk für 7999488 wurde nicht gefunden

clone_file_block: interner Fehler; dup_blk für 7999488 wurde nicht gefunden

Datei /Recordings/.../MVI_8575.MOV (Inode #86114508, Modifikationszeitpunkt Sat Mar 24 22:09:56 2012) 
  hat Block Nr.244958 doppelte Block(s), gemeinsam genutzt mit 1 Datei(en):
    /Recordings/.../MVI_8571.MOV (Inode #86114504, mod time Sat Mar 24 22:09:56 2012)
Duplizierte Blocks bereits neu zugeordnet bzw. geklont.

Datei /Recordings/.../MVI_3598.MOV (Inode #86376840, Modifikationszeitpunkt Thu Aug 23 21:14:34 2012) 
  hat Block Nr.45835 doppelte Block(s), gemeinsam genutzt mit 1 Datei(en):
    /Recordings/.../SomeFile.psd (Inode #86376844, mod time Thu Aug 23 21:14:34 2012)
multiply claimed block map? ja

clone_file_block: interner Fehler; dup_blk für 345554931 wurde nicht gefunden

clone_file_block: interner Fehler; dup_blk für 345554931 wurde nicht gefunden

Datei /Recordings/.../SomeFile.psd (Inode #86376844, Modifikationszeitpunkt Thu Aug 23 21:14:34 2012) 
  hat Block Nr.45835 doppelte Block(s), gemeinsam genutzt mit 1 Datei(en):
    /Recordings/.../MVI_3598.MOV (Inode #86376840, mod time Thu Aug 23 21:14:34 2012)
Duplizierte Blocks bereits neu zugeordnet bzw. geklont.

Durchgang 2: Prüfe Verzeichnis Struktur
Durchgang 3: Prüfe Verzeichnis Verknüpfungen
Durchgang 4: Überprüfe die Referenzzähler
Durchgang 5: Überprüfe Gruppe Zusammenfassung

/dev/sdb1: ***** DATEISYSTEM WURDE VERÄNDERT *****

121950 Inodes sind in Benutzung (0.07%)
    1244 nicht zusammenhängende Dateien (1.0%)
      30 nicht zusammenhängende Verzeichnisse (0.0%)
         # von Inodes mit ind/dind/tind Blöcken: 0/0/0
         Erweiterungstiefe Histogramm: 121816/126
184589222 Blöcke werden benutzt (25.20%)
0 ungültige Blöcke
       4 große Dateien

  119827 reguläre Dateien
    2114 Verzeichnisse
       0 zeichenorientierte Gerätedateien
       0 Blockgerätedateien
       0 Fifos
      11 Verknüpfungen
       0 symbolische Verknüpfungen (0 schnelle symbolische Verknüpfungen)
       0 Sockets
--------
  121952 Dateien

So this makes me think, I have no way of getting a clean filesystem state without formatting this disk, am I right? I've started a 5th run of e2fsck, and I would bet on it again finding some problems just as the 4th run above did, although the output of the 3rd run looked like he was happy with his result and terminated himself.

I'll give you another update when the 5th run finished.

UPDATE8: (2012-12-12_1736) In parallel to posting my progress here, I've described my problem in mails I've sent to the mailing-list linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org --> and Theodore Ts'o has read my mails there, and helped me out. I've sent him a compressed e2image -Q /dev/sdb1 image of that disk (metadata) and he gave me these commands

debugfs -w /dev/sdb1
debugfs: clri <86114492>
debugfs: clri <86114504>
debugfs: clri <86376840>
debugfs: quit

to run, which made the next e2fsck run really quick and gave me a clean filesystem state again. I've lost a few files, but most of the stuff is still where it was before the problems started. And I did not have any problems with the disk since.

And here's my kernel version and my e2fsck version from back then (copied from a mail to Ted):

kaefert@blechmobil:~$ uname -a
Linux blechmobil 3.2.0-3-amd64 #1 SMP Thu Jun 28 09:07:26 UTC 2012
x86_64 GNU/Linux

kaefert@blechmobil:~$ sudo e2fsck -V
e2fsck 1.42.4 (12-Jun-2012)
        Benutze EXT2FS Library version 1.42.4, 12-Jun-2012

(times are in CET)

share|improve this question
    
uname -a, please :) –  GioMac Dec 11 '12 at 22:45

2 Answers 2

I notice that over 47% of your CPU used is "niced" (i.e. running at slower than normal priority). Could this be the fsck process? If so, I might suggest that you renice it to at least normal priority. This could be the reason for the slowness.

share|improve this answer
1  
well as I understood it this low priority will make the kernel give the processor time slots first to processes or threads with higher priority, and afterwards to the processes with lower priority. Since the other processes all take up nearly no cpu time, this priority thing shouldn't matter to much. When I look at top I see that the e2fsck process always gets between 90 and 100% of one core. I'm guessing that e2fsck is not multithreaded, or at least not started that way, therefore it can't do more than 100% of one CPU-core. –  kaefert Nov 6 '12 at 22:02

uname -a, please :) I guess it's Theodore Tso's bug in kernel 3.x: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/23/690

share|improve this answer
    
I've added an update to my question, which also contains the kernel version. I don't know if I've been effected by that same bug, I don't recognise the error messages that are cited there. –  kaefert Dec 12 '12 at 16:48

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.