Bad magic number in super-block; re-partioned, tried e2fsck, etc. What next?
I've got a 512GB SSD (M.2) drive in my laptop. It was originally the boot drive, until I dropped in a standard-size 1TB SSD to be the main drive. I planned to use the other drive as a data drive for music, video, etc - non essential stuff.
However, it apparently suffered some kind of fault about a week ago and won't mount. mount complains about a bad superblock.
I booted up Knoppix and set to work. I started from what seemed like the simplest logical point: fsck.
That got me...
sudo fsck -a /dev/sdb
fsck from util-linux 2.29.2
fsck.ext2: Bad magic number in super-block while trying to open /dev/sdb
/dev/sdb:
The superblock could not be read or does not describe a valid ext2/ext3/ext4
filesystem. If the device is valid and it really contains an ext2/ext3/ext4
filesystem (and not swap or ufs or something else), then the superblock
is corrupt, and you might try running e2fsck with an alternate superblock:
e2fsck -b 8193 <device>
or
e2fsck -b 32768 <device>
Found a dos partition table in /dev/sdb
I tried a few of those suggested magic numbers for e2fsck and got the same error message.
So I fired up GParted, deleted the partition table, and reformatted the whole drive as one big ext4/msdos/primary partition.
Now it mounts (at least in this Knoppix live system), but do I need to worry? Can this drive be trusted, or is that bad superblock a sign of worse yet to come? Like I said, it's for non-essential data, but I don't want to have it bomb out again if I can avoid it.
I still can't run fsck on it to see if there are other bad sectors lurking out there. Something like that would make me feel a lot more secure.
Thanks.
mount fsck
asked Jan 8 at 17:04
DitoDito
11
migrated from serverfault.com Jan 8 at 17:06
This question came from our site for system and network administrators.
add a comment |
I've got a 512GB SSD (M.2) drive in my laptop. It was originally the boot drive, until I dropped in a standard-size 1TB SSD to be the main drive. I planned to use the other drive as a data drive for music, video, etc - non essential stuff.
However, it apparently suffered some kind of fault about a week ago and won't mount. mount complains about a bad superblock.
I booted up Knoppix and set to work. I started from what seemed like the simplest logical point: fsck.
That got me...
sudo fsck -a /dev/sdb
fsck from util-linux 2.29.2
fsck.ext2: Bad magic number in super-block while trying to open /dev/sdb
/dev/sdb:
The superblock could not be read or does not describe a valid ext2/ext3/ext4
filesystem. If the device is valid and it really contains an ext2/ext3/ext4
filesystem (and not swap or ufs or something else), then the superblock
is corrupt, and you might try running e2fsck with an alternate superblock:
e2fsck -b 8193 <device>
or
e2fsck -b 32768 <device>
Found a dos partition table in /dev/sdb
I tried a few of those suggested magic numbers for e2fsck and got the same error message.
So I fired up GParted, deleted the partition table, and reformatted the whole drive as one big ext4/msdos/primary partition.
Now it mounts (at least in this Knoppix live system), but do I need to worry? Can this drive be trusted, or is that bad superblock a sign of worse yet to come? Like I said, it's for non-essential data, but I don't want to have it bomb out again if I can avoid it.
I still can't run fsck on it to see if there are other bad sectors lurking out there. Something like that would make me feel a lot more secure.
Thanks.
mount fsck
asked Jan 8 at 17:04
DitoDito
11
migrated from serverfault.com Jan 8 at 17:06
This question came from our site for system and network administrators.
Sounds like a [serverfault](serverfault) question
– user234461
Jan 8 at 17:09
add a comment |
I've got a 512GB SSD (M.2) drive in my laptop. It was originally the boot drive, until I dropped in a standard-size 1TB SSD to be the main drive. I planned to use the other drive as a data drive for music, video, etc - non essential stuff.
However, it apparently suffered some kind of fault about a week ago and won't mount. mount complains about a bad superblock.
I booted up Knoppix and set to work. I started from what seemed like the simplest logical point: fsck.
That got me...
sudo fsck -a /dev/sdb
fsck from util-linux 2.29.2
fsck.ext2: Bad magic number in super-block while trying to open /dev/sdb
/dev/sdb:
The superblock could not be read or does not describe a valid ext2/ext3/ext4
filesystem. If the device is valid and it really contains an ext2/ext3/ext4
filesystem (and not swap or ufs or something else), then the superblock
is corrupt, and you might try running e2fsck with an alternate superblock:
e2fsck -b 8193 <device>
or
e2fsck -b 32768 <device>
Found a dos partition table in /dev/sdb
I tried a few of those suggested magic numbers for e2fsck and got the same error message.
So I fired up GParted, deleted the partition table, and reformatted the whole drive as one big ext4/msdos/primary partition.
Now it mounts (at least in this Knoppix live system), but do I need to worry? Can this drive be trusted, or is that bad superblock a sign of worse yet to come? Like I said, it's for non-essential data, but I don't want to have it bomb out again if I can avoid it.
I still can't run fsck on it to see if there are other bad sectors lurking out there. Something like that would make me feel a lot more secure.
Thanks.
mount fsck
asked Jan 8 at 17:04
DitoDito
11
I've got a 512GB SSD (M.2) drive in my laptop. It was originally the boot drive, until I dropped in a standard-size 1TB SSD to be the main drive. I planned to use the other drive as a data drive for music, video, etc - non essential stuff.
However, it apparently suffered some kind of fault about a week ago and won't mount. mount complains about a bad superblock.
I booted up Knoppix and set to work. I started from what seemed like the simplest logical point: fsck.
That got me...
sudo fsck -a /dev/sdb
fsck from util-linux 2.29.2
fsck.ext2: Bad magic number in super-block while trying to open /dev/sdb
/dev/sdb:
The superblock could not be read or does not describe a valid ext2/ext3/ext4
filesystem. If the device is valid and it really contains an ext2/ext3/ext4
filesystem (and not swap or ufs or something else), then the superblock
is corrupt, and you might try running e2fsck with an alternate superblock:
e2fsck -b 8193 <device>
or
e2fsck -b 32768 <device>
Found a dos partition table in /dev/sdb
I tried a few of those suggested magic numbers for e2fsck and got the same error message.
So I fired up GParted, deleted the partition table, and reformatted the whole drive as one big ext4/msdos/primary partition.
Now it mounts (at least in this Knoppix live system), but do I need to worry? Can this drive be trusted, or is that bad superblock a sign of worse yet to come? Like I said, it's for non-essential data, but I don't want to have it bomb out again if I can avoid it.
I still can't run fsck on it to see if there are other bad sectors lurking out there. Something like that would make me feel a lot more secure.
Thanks.
mount fsck
mount fsck
asked Jan 8 at 17:04
DitoDito
11
asked Jan 8 at 17:04
DitoDito
11
asked Jan 8 at 17:04
DitoDito
11
asked Jan 8 at 17:04
DitoDito
11
asked Jan 8 at 17:04
DitoDito
11
11
migrated from serverfault.com Jan 8 at 17:06
This question came from our site for system and network administrators.
migrated from serverfault.com Jan 8 at 17:06
This question came from our site for system and network administrators.
Sounds like a [serverfault](serverfault) question
– user234461
Jan 8 at 17:09
add a comment |
Sounds like a [serverfault](serverfault) question
– user234461
Jan 8 at 17:09
Sounds like a [serverfault](serverfault) question
– user234461
Jan 8 at 17:09
Sounds like a [serverfault](serverfault) question
– user234461
Jan 8 at 17:09
add a comment |
0
active
oldest
votes
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "3"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f1391951%2fbad-magic-number-in-super-block-re-partioned-tried-e2fsck-etc-what-next%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Thanks for contributing an answer to Super User!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f1391951%2fbad-magic-number-in-super-block-re-partioned-tried-e2fsck-etc-what-next%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Sounds like a [serverfault](serverfault) question
– user234461
Jan 8 at 17:09