Thanks both, yes I wondered.
My concern is: the fsck errors do not look like random corruption, at least not in my 20 years of UNIX filesystem failures
Many of the errors look like: inode bits indicate features that are not globally enabled for this fs.
That makes me worry that this was in some way intentional, and Humax simply failed to update their fsck to match. Silly thing to do, of course, but...
that might be borne out by the suspicion that Humax had made fs changes to support e.g. ext3 fs use on external USB disks that are intended to be ripped out without first explicitly unmounting: remember the on-telly UI has no unmount/eject feature, right? Although af123 did add it to the WebIF when I requested it bless him.
Given that, and the fact that it is the Humax that
writes to the disk, I wondered if it would be safer to leave the fs as Humax-created, and only mount it RO on other Linux boxes.
Yet all my other UNIX experience tells me otherwise: re-make the fs clean, on Linux, and that does appear to work OK on the Humax.
Yet without knowing what Humax were playing at, we might then be losing something important...?
sigh.
thanks again for the comments...
