Jaap Struyk wrote:
> Eric Sandeen schreef:
>> when you are talking about sizes, do you mean space used (du) or max
>> offset (ls -l?) max offset should be the same for your image file as
>> for your original device... 120G.
> ls -l
> But I don't know what tot trust anymore, if I look with gparted at my
> partitions the old disk gaves me a partition of 140G with 106G used space.
> My new disk has a partition of 200G with 166G used space.
> If I create a new xfs partition it has about 10% used space (according
> to gparted, I suspect thats the size of the logfiles?) so from the 166G
> on the new disk 146G is the "real" used space so that should be the size
> of the image file. (nomather what ls -l tells me)
> Is this correct?
Ok. repair is trying to read a superblock at:
superblock read failed, offset 103376846848, size 2048, ag 11, rval 0
103376846848 bytes... or about 96 MB (base 2) (or 103 base 10)
if ls -l on your image file is not at least that big, of course it can't
read it. And if that's smaller than your filesystem, then the image
from your db output:
xfs_db> sb 0
magicnum = 0x58465342
blocksize = 4096
dblocks = 36710528
it looks like the original filesystem was bigger than your image:
150366322688 <-- 140 MB
so it looks like your image file is not correct... I'm not familiar with
the tool you're using, is it somehow compressing a sparse file or
something like that?