2017-08-01 0:39 GMT+03:00 Ivan Sizov :
> 2017-08-01 0:17 GMT+03:00 Marc MERLIN :
>> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 12:07:14AM +0300, Ivan Sizov wrote:
>>> 2017-07-09 10:57 GMT+03:00 Martin Steigerwald :
>>> > Hello Marc.
>>> >
>>> > Marc MERLIN - 0
2017-08-01 0:17 GMT+03:00 Marc MERLIN :
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 12:07:14AM +0300, Ivan Sizov wrote:
>> 2017-07-09 10:57 GMT+03:00 Martin Steigerwald :
>> > Hello Marc.
>> >
>> > Marc MERLIN - 08.07.17, 21:34:
>> >> Sigh,
>> >>
>>
hes-backref-missing/369275
If an additional debug info is needed, I'm ready to provide it.
--
Ivan Sizov
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
ret_from_fork+0x2c/0x40
> [ 625.657546] ---[ end trace 1c4d5dd9396052af ]---
> [ 625.657548] BTRFS: error (device dm-1) in __btrfs_free_extent:6942:
> errno=-2 No such entry
> [ 625.657550] BTRFS info (device dm-1): forced readonly
> [ 625.657553] BTRFS: error (device dm-1)
Small clarification after reading journal: errors stats weren't
changed on sda since December, but READ error count was increased on
sdc (especially in May, when I first noticed problems) and sdb.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to
ems that my stupid "check --repair" attempts corrupted FS internals
heavily.
Can I just remove sda from RAID-1 and run rebalance?
2017-07-27 17:02 GMT+03:00 Ivan Sizov :
> My RAID-1 FS have multiple "backpointer mismatch" errors. "btrfs check
> --repair" doesn't
t;--init-extent-tree" deal with backref problems? Will those
backrefs completely reconstructed?
Can similar "backref not found" and "backpointer mismatched" errors
have very different causes and different fix scenarios?
--
Ivan Sizov
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
as yet replied to?
Yes, exactly.
--
Ivan Sizov
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
low one of these examples. But I didn't face with such situation
ever.
--
Ivan Sizov
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
y other addresses. At least I used to initiate posts in such
way.
--
Ivan Sizov
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
You need to put a person to whom you reply in "TO" field and mailing
list in "CC" field.
--
Ivan Sizov
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Thanks
>
> Jesse
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
Ivan Sizov
--
To unsubscribe from th
2017-06-02 1:57 GMT+03:00 Liu Bo :
> On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 11:26:26PM +0300, Ivan Sizov wrote:
>> 2017-06-01 20:35 GMT+03:00 Liu Bo :
>> > After I went through the output of leaf's content, most parts of the
>> > leaf is sane except the two corrupted items, it
r to determine which files are
corrupted? What are proper options to run fsck with?
--
Ivan Sizov
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
2017-05-30 21:02 GMT+03:00 Liu Bo :
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 05:05:09PM +0300, Ivan Sizov wrote:
>> 2017-05-26 3:26 GMT+03:00 Liu Bo :
>> >Patch 6 adds scrub support to detect the corruption, so users can be
>> noticed when they do scrub on a regular basis.
>> >I&
2017-05-26 3:26 GMT+03:00 Liu Bo :
>Patch 6 adds scrub support to detect the corruption, so users can be
noticed when they do scrub on a regular basis.
>I'm not sure in the real world what may result in this corruption
I've caught this type of corruption in the wild. The big rsync backup
always en
ler is almost
dead. You shouldn't further use it with USB because this lead to data
corruption. Detach HDD from case and plug directly to a SATA port or
replace the controller.
--
Ivan Sizov
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a me
y posted on Tue, 09 Aug 2016 11:10:08 -0600 as excerpted:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Ivan Sizov wrote:
>>> 2016-08-08 20:13 GMT+03:00 Chris Murphy :
>>>> Just a wild guess, the deletions may be in the tree log and haven't
>>>> been appli
2016-08-08 21:52 GMT+03:00 Hugo Mills :
> On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 09:38:28PM +0300, Ivan Sizov wrote:
>> P.S. IMHO, log replay by default is a quite dangerous thing. I didn't
>> know about that change and I could lose all files if the live USB had
>> 4.6 kernel))
>
ainly,
I'll make an rsync diff between two-week-ago snapshot and the current
FS state. But it will better if in-place recover without backup is
possible.
P.S. IMHO, log replay by default is a quite dangerous thing. I didn't
know about that change and I could lose all files if the li
and booting
to a live USB a strange thing was discovered.
Deleted files are present when I "mount -r" the disk, but
btrfs-restore tells they are deleted ("We have looped trying to
restore files too many times to be making progress").
What does it mean? Will those files b
Is there a way to know when the root tree or generation was created?
btrfs-find-root doesn't have such option.
--
Ivan Sizov (SIvan)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordom
ify failed on 459292672 wanted 21148 found 21153
Ignoring transid failure
bad block 459292672
Errors found in extent allocation tree or chunk allocation
parent transid verify failed on 459292672 wanted 21148 found 21153
Should I ignore those errors and run btrfsck --repair? Or
--init-extent-tree is nee
be a good idea to run btrfs-find-root -a, trying to find a good
> copy of old btrfs root tree.
> It may cause miracle to make it RW again.
Thanks for advice. "btrfs-find-root -a" is running at the moment. What
should I do after its completion? Should I just try RW mounting o
Is there a way to view the CoW structure, e.g. to know is file just a
reflink or it was modified? I copied many files from snapshot with
--reflink=always I and want to know which files was modified since the
copying. Calculating hashsums seems to be too long thing.
--
Ivan Sizov
--
To
2015-12-11 21:24 GMT+03:00 Chris Murphy :
> I would not repair it if the risk of it getting worse is bad for your data.
>
> Note the wiki says this feature is not well tested and is reported to
> not work reliably.
> https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Conversion_from_Ext3
>
> Qu is working on
Btrfs crashes in few seconds after mounting RW.
If it's important: the volume was converted from ext4. "ext2_saved"
subvolume still presents.
dmesg:
[ 625.998387] BTRFS info (device sda1): disk space caching is enabled
[ 625.998392] BTRFS: has skinny extents
[ 627.727708] BTRFS: checking UUID t
27 matches
Mail list logo