On 15 Nov 2012 10:00 -0600, from nemesis-li...@icequake.net (Ryan C. Underwood):
> There is still a lot of data missing though. If I am reading this
> correctly there was about 300GB of data which compressed to 254GB
> on-disk.
>
> Label: 'vicep-library' uuid: 89b14d35-b31a-4fbe-a2d9-cb83cbcd385
Finally made some more progress on one of my melted down btrfs from
earlier this year.
First I hacked find-root.c to not stop scanning the disk when it
thinks it has found the real root. I wanted it to print out all
possible roots. I saved the stderr output to a logfile. About 1226
possible ro
I made a little bit of progress recovering this mess, seems
btrfs-progs has improved since I last tried.
# ./btrfs-find-root /dev/mapper/tr5ut-vicep--library
[..]
Well block 317865713664 seems great, but generation doesn't match, have=574372,
want=575931
Well block 317874491392 seems great, but
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 10:31:34AM -0600, Ryan C. Underwood wrote:
> So, I examined the below filesystem, the one of the two that I would
> really like to restore. There is basically nothing but zeros, and
> very occasionally a sparse string of data, until exactly 0x20
> offset,
This matches
So, I examined the below filesystem, the one of the two that I would
really like to restore. There is basically nothing but zeros, and
very occasionally a sparse string of data, until exactly 0x20
offset, at which point the data is suddenly very packed and looks like
usual compressed data sho
On Tuesday 07 February 2012 20:53:59 Duncan wrote:
> Kernel 3.2.2 is relatively recent altho you could
> try the latest 3.3 rc or git kernel as well
Please keep in mind that work done in git does not appear to get
backported to the stable updates for releases (such as 3.2.x), in
other words yo
Output of 'restore':
# /usr/local/btrfs-progs/bin/restore -v /dev/mapper/tr5ut-vicep--clones /mnt2
No valid Btrfs found on /dev/mapper/tr5ut-vicep--clones
Could not open root, trying backup super
Check tree block failed, want=298807296, have=13791616683601169802
Check tree block failed, want=2988
Output of btrfs-zero-log attempts similar to btrfsck.
# ./btrfs-zero-log /dev/mapper/tr5ut-vicep--clones
No valid Btrfs found on /dev/mapper/tr5ut-vicep--clones
# ./btrfs-zero-log
/dev/mapper/tr5ut-vicep--library
checksum verify failed on 317874630656 wanted 8E19212D found FFA6
checksum ve
On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 08:36:15AM -0600, Mitch Harder wrote:
>
> Since you're getting "failed to read /dev/sr0" messages, that might be
> an indication there are some newer btrfs-progs tools available.
>
> You might want to try the building btrfs-progs from the git repository:
> http://git.kern
On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 12:17:23PM +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
> >>
> >> The failure occurred while the volumes were online and in use, so in
> >> addition to what was unreadable, all pending writes to the device
> >> between the failure and when the problem was discovered were lost as
> >> well.
> >>
>
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Ryan C. Underwood
wrote:
>
>> > Unfortunately, I am going to have to give up on btrfs if it
>> > is really so fragile.
>>
>> However, complaining about the fragility of a still in development
>> and
>> marked experimental filesystem would seem disingenuous at best.
> > Unfortunately, I am going to have to give up on btrfs if it
> > is really so fragile.
>
> However, complaining about the fragility of a still in development
> and
> marked experimental filesystem would seem disingenuous at best.
[snip paragraphs of tut-tutting]
> IOW, yes, btrfs is to be c
Ryan C. Underwood posted on Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:39:45 -0600 as excerpted:
> Does anyone have any idea how I should proceed with the below quoted
> situation? Unfortunately, I am going to have to give up on btrfs if it
> is really so fragile. I am using kernel 3.2.2 and btrfs-tools from
> Novembe
On 02/07/2012 11:39 AM, Ryan C. Underwood wrote:
> Does anyone have any idea how I should proceed with the below quoted
> situation? Unfortunately, I am going to have to give up on btrfs if
> it is really so fragile. I am using kernel 3.2.2 and btrfs-tools
> from November.
>
> On Sun, Feb 05, 20
Does anyone have any idea how I should proceed with the below quoted
situation? Unfortunately, I am going to have to give up on btrfs if
it is really so fragile. I am using kernel 3.2.2 and btrfs-tools
from November.
On Sun, Feb 05, 2012 at 12:41:28PM -0600, Ryan C. Underwood wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
Hi,
I had a RAID5 double disk failure (40 megs or so bad sectors near
middle of the second failed disk), bad news but I recovered what I was
able to.
The RAID contained a dm-crypt physical volume which then contained
four logical volumes. Two are EXT4 and two BTRFS, about 1TB in size
each.
The
16 matches
Mail list logo