> I think it is best that you just repeat the fixing again on the real
> disks and just make sure you have an uptodate/latest kernel+tools when
> fixing the few damaged files.
> With btrfs inspect-internal inode-resolve 257
> you can see what file(s) are damaged.
I inspected the damaged files,
On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 4:59 PM, John Marrett wrote:
>>> If you do want to use a newer one, I'd build against kernel.org, just
>>> because the developers only use that base. And use 4.4.6 or 4.5.
>>
>> At this point I could remove the overlays and recover the filesystem
>>
>> If you do want to use a newer one, I'd build against kernel.org, just
>> because the developers only use that base. And use 4.4.6 or 4.5.
>
> At this point I could remove the overlays and recover the filesystem
> permanently, however I'm also deeply indebted to the btrfs community
> and want to
>> I was looking under btrfs device, sorry about that. I do have the
>> command. I tried replace and it seemed more promising than the last
>> attempt, it wrote enough data to the new drive to overflow and break
>> my overlay. I'm trying it without the overlay on the destination
>> device, I'll
On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 3:01 PM, John Marrett wrote:
>> Well off hand it seems like the missing 2.73TB has nothing on it at
>> all, and doesn't need to be counted as missing. The other missing is
>> counted, and should have all of its data replicated elsewhere. But
>> then
> Well off hand it seems like the missing 2.73TB has nothing on it at
> all, and doesn't need to be counted as missing. The other missing is
> counted, and should have all of its data replicated elsewhere. But
> then you're running into csum errors. So something still isn't right,
> we just don't
On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 6:15 AM, John Marrett wrote:
> Chris,
>
>> Post 'btrfs fi usage' for the fileystem. That may give some insight
>> what's expected to be on all the missing drives.
>
> Here's the information, I believe that the missing we see in most
> entries is the
Chris,
> Post 'btrfs fi usage' for the fileystem. That may give some insight
> what's expected to be on all the missing drives.
Here's the information, I believe that the missing we see in most
entries is the failed and absent drive, only the unallocated shows two
missing entries, the 2.73 TB is
[let me try keeping the list cc'd]
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 7:21 PM, John Marrett wrote:
> Chris,
>
>> Quite honestly I don't understand how Btrfs raid1 volume with two
>> missing devices even permits you to mount it degraded,rw in the first
>> place.
>
> I think you missed
Chris,
> Quite honestly I don't understand how Btrfs raid1 volume with two
> missing devices even permits you to mount it degraded,rw in the first
> place.
I think you missed my previous post, it's simple, I patched the kernel
to bypass the check for missing devices with rw mounts, I did this
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 4:31 PM, John Marrett wrote:
> Continuing with my recovery efforts I've built overlay mounts of each
> of the block devices supporting my btrfs filesystem as well as the new
> disk I'm trying to introduce. I have patched the kernel to disable the
>
Continuing with my recovery efforts I've built overlay mounts of each
of the block devices supporting my btrfs filesystem as well as the new
disk I'm trying to introduce. I have patched the kernel to disable the
check for multiple missing devices. I then exported the overlayed
devices using iSCSI
Henk,
> I asume you did btrfs device add ?
> Or did you do this withbtrfs replace ?
Just realised I missed this question, sorry, I performed an add
followed by a (failed) delete.
-JohnF
>
>> filesystem successfully, when I attempted to remove the failed drive I
>> encountered an
After further discussion in #btrfs:
I left out the raid level, it's raid1:
ubuntu@ubuntu:~$ sudo btrfs filesystem df /mnt
Data, RAID1: total=6.04TiB, used=5.46TiB
System, RAID1: total=32.00MiB, used=880.00KiB
Metadata, RAID1: total=14.00GiB, used=11.59GiB
GlobalReserve, single: total=512.00MiB,
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 9:19 PM, John Marrett wrote:
> I recently had a drive failure in a file server running btrfs. The
> failed drive was completely non-functional. I added a new drive to the
I asume you did btrfs device add ?
Or did you do this withbtrfs
15 matches
Mail list logo