[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: mount error 22 mounting ext3

On Mar 17, 2003  10:39 -0600, Erin Teachman wrote:
> I recently installed RedHat 8.0 on my computer but i discovered that 
> i also needed to install windows for several programs that I still 
> needed. I have two HDs, the RedHat install is on an 80Gb drive and 
> the windows install is on an 8gb hard drive (which is the slave). I 
> attempted to install windows on the slave but that is a no go so I 
> powered down the computer and unhooked the ide cables making the 8gb 
> hard drive the master and leaving the other drive without power and 
> without an ide hookup.

It is entirely possible that Windows wiped out your primary drive at
this point.  Windows always needs to be installed on drive C (primary).

> Now, in the original error, it complained about a bad 
> superblock which I fixed with mkfs.ext3 -S. The next error was that 
> the journal was not present which tune2fs -c seems to have fixed, 
> because the error now reads:

So, "mkfs.ext3 -S" is not a very good way to recover your filesystem.
Much preferred is "e2fsck -b 4096 -B 32768" or similar.  If it gets to
the point where all of your superblocks are bad (which are distributed
across your entire disk) chances are that the rest of the filesystem
has been corrupted also.

> The kicker of all of this is that fdisk sees the partition just fine 
> and reports that it is an ext3 filesystem with all the proper 
> attributes.

That's because you did "mkfs.ext3 -S", which wrote a superblock on the

> see the partition though. I have pretty important data on the drive 
> so I don't want to just reformat and start over before I have 
> exhausted all of my options.


Failing that, you can use "strings" or some other binary editor to search
for your data on the disk, and start copying out the blocks.  This works
OK if you have text data, much less well otherwise.

> The other is just as important to me: Why did this happen? The linux 
> drive wasn't hooked up and it wasnt modified in anyway by the windows 
> install (I installed 98 by the way) but somehow it no longer 
> functioned afterward. Even if I can't recover my data, answering this 
> question would make my day a lot better.

It was connected the first time you tried to install windows.  Sadly,
windows has the "feature" that if it can't read the drive it assumes
it hasn't been formatted and proceeds to format the disk (saving you
the effort of doing it yourself).

Cheers, Andreas
Andreas Dilger

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]