e2fsck: aborted

[J.B. Nicholson-Owens]

Andreas Dilger wrote:
> What is more important to know is why it thinks the block/inode
> bitmaps and inode table need to be relocated in the first place. That
> is a pretty serious/significant problem that should normally never
> been seen, since the bitmaps never move, and there are backups of all
> the group descriptors (that say where the bitmaps are located).

I was unaware this was such a serious issue.  Unfortunately I have no
helpful information to offer.

> Did you do something like resize your filesystem before having this
> problem?

No resizing at all; this drive has always had one volume on it at max 
size (1TB minus whatever ext3 needs for its own bookkeeping).

I used to have this drive mounted in another computer running gNewSense
(latest + updates) but I thought I'd detach it and put the drive on this
64-bit 4GB machine.

Does it matter that the other system was a 32-bit system?  Would it be
wise to attempt fsck on a 32-bit machine?

Thanks for your input.