Re: help!!! error when mount a btrfs file system

At 03/16/2017 08:23 PM, 李云甫 wrote: hi, buddy I have a file server with btrfs file system, it's work well for several months. but after last system reboot, the /dev/sdb become not mountable. below is the details. is there any advise? ##Version info Fedora 25 Server Kernel

Re: help converting btrfs to new writeback error tracking?

ou > > > > can now tell whether there has been a writeback error since a certain > > > > point in time, irrespective of whether anyone else is checking for > > > > errors. > > > > > > > > I've been doing some conversions of the existing

Re: File system is oddly full after kernel upgrade, balance doesn't help

On 2017-01-28 13:15, MegaBrutal wrote: Hello, Of course I can't retrieve the data from before the balance, but here is the data from now: root@vmhost:~# btrfs fi show /tmp/mnt/curlybrace Label: 'curlybrace' uuid: f471bfca-51c4-4e44-ac72-c6cd9ccaf535 Total devices 1 FS bytes used

Re: help converting btrfs to new writeback error tracking?

anyone else is checking for > > > errors. > > > > > > I've been doing some conversions of the existing code to the new scheme, > > > but btrfs has _really_ complicated error handling. I think it could > > > probably be simplified with this new s

Re: help converting btrfs to new writeback error tracking?

you > > can now tell whether there has been a writeback error since a certain > > point in time, irrespective of whether anyone else is checking for > > errors. > > > > I've been doing some conversions of the existing code to the new scheme, > > but btrfs has _real

Re: help converting btrfs to new writeback error tracking?

else is checking for > errors. > > I've been doing some conversions of the existing code to the new scheme, > but btrfs has _really_ complicated error handling. I think it could > probably be simplified with this new scheme, but I could use some help > here. > > What I think we

help converting btrfs to new writeback error tracking?

handling. I think it could probably be simplified with this new scheme, but I could use some help here. What I think we probably want to do is to sample the error sequence in the mapping at well-defined points in time (probably when starting a transaction?) and then use that to determine whether writeback

[PATCH 4/9] btrfs-progs: help: Unbind short help description from btrfs

+static const char * const btrfs_short_desc[] = { + "For an overview of a given command use 'btrfs command --help'", + "or 'btrfs [command...] --help --full' to print all available options.", + "Any command name can be shortened as far as it stays unambiguou

Re: Need some help: "BTRFS critical (device sda): corrupt leaf, slot offset bad: block"

g. So >> it's just a matter of time before copying data off will fail. > ** Context here is, more than 1 device missing. > Thanks you guys for all your help and input. I've ordered two new drives to backup all my data. I have a cloud backup in place, but 13TB takes a while to upl

Re: Need some help: "BTRFS critical (device sda): corrupt leaf, slot offset bad: block"

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 10:02 PM, Robert Krig wrote: > > > On 03.04.2017 16:25, Robert Krig wrote: >> >> I'm gonna run a extensive memory check once I get home, since you >> mentioned corrupt memory might be an issue here. >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list:

Re: Need some help: "BTRFS critical (device sda): corrupt leaf, slot offset bad: block"

On 2017-04-04 09:29, Brian B wrote: On 04/04/2017 12:02 AM, Robert Krig wrote: My storage array is BTRFS Raid1 with 4x8TB Drives. Wouldn't it be possible to simply disconnect two of those drives, mount with -o degraded and still have access (even if read-only) to all my data? Just jumping on

Re: Need some help: "BTRFS critical (device sda): corrupt leaf, slot offset bad: block"

On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 09:29:11AM -0400, Brian B wrote: > On 04/04/2017 12:02 AM, Robert Krig wrote: > > My storage array is BTRFS Raid1 with 4x8TB Drives. > > Wouldn't it be possible to simply disconnect two of those drives, mount > > with -o degraded and still have access (even if read-only) to

Re: Need some help: "BTRFS critical (device sda): corrupt leaf, slot offset bad: block"

On 04/04/2017 12:02 AM, Robert Krig wrote: > My storage array is BTRFS Raid1 with 4x8TB Drives. > Wouldn't it be possible to simply disconnect two of those drives, mount > with -o degraded and still have access (even if read-only) to all my data? Just jumping on this point: my understanding of

Re: Need some help: "BTRFS critical (device sda): corrupt leaf, slot offset bad: block"

On 03.04.2017 16:25, Robert Krig wrote: > > I'm gonna run a extensive memory check once I get home, since you > mentioned corrupt memory might be an issue here. > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org >

Re: Need some help: "BTRFS critical (device sda): corrupt leaf, slot offset bad: block"

On 04/03/2017 04:20 PM, Robert Krig wrote: > > > On 03.04.2017 16:08, Hans van Kranenburg wrote: >> On 04/03/2017 12:11 PM, Robert Krig wrote: >> The corruption is at item 157. Can you attach all of the output, or >> pastebin it? >> > > I've attached the entire log of btrfs-debug-tree. This was

Re: Need some help: "BTRFS critical (device sda): corrupt leaf, slot offset bad: block"

On 03.04.2017 16:20, Robert Krig wrote: > > On 03.04.2017 16:08, Hans van Kranenburg wrote: >> On 04/03/2017 12:11 PM, Robert Krig wrote: >> The corruption is at item 157. Can you attach all of the output, or >> pastebin it? >> > > I've attached the entire log of btrfs-debug-tree. This was

Re: Need some help: "BTRFS critical (device sda): corrupt leaf, slot offset bad: block"

On 03.04.2017 16:08, Hans van Kranenburg wrote: > On 04/03/2017 12:11 PM, Robert Krig wrote: > The corruption is at item 157. Can you attach all of the output, or > pastebin it? > I've attached the entire log of btrfs-debug-tree. This was generated with btrfs-progs 4.7.3 If it makes a

Re: Need some help: "BTRFS critical (device sda): corrupt leaf, slot offset bad: block"

On 04/03/2017 03:50 PM, Robert Krig wrote: > > > On 03.04.2017 12:11, Robert Krig wrote: >> Hi guys, I seem to have run into a spot of trouble with my btrfs partition. >> >> I've got 4 x 8TB in a RAID1 BTRFS configuration. >> >> I'm running Debian Jessie 64 Bit, 4.9.0-0.bpo.2-amd64 kernel. Btrfs

Re: Need some help: "BTRFS critical (device sda): corrupt leaf, slot offset bad: block"

On 04/03/2017 12:11 PM, Robert Krig wrote: > Hi guys, I seem to have run into a spot of trouble with my btrfs partition. > > I've got 4 x 8TB in a RAID1 BTRFS configuration. > > I'm running Debian Jessie 64 Bit, 4.9.0-0.bpo.2-amd64 kernel. Btrfs > progs version v4.7.3 > > Server has 8GB of Ram.

Re: Need some help: "BTRFS critical (device sda): corrupt leaf, slot offset bad: block"

On 03.04.2017 12:11, Robert Krig wrote: > Hi guys, I seem to have run into a spot of trouble with my btrfs partition. > > I've got 4 x 8TB in a RAID1 BTRFS configuration. > > I'm running Debian Jessie 64 Bit, 4.9.0-0.bpo.2-amd64 kernel. Btrfs > progs version v4.7.3 > > Server has 8GB of Ram. > >

Need some help: "BTRFS critical (device sda): corrupt leaf, slot offset bad: block"

Hi guys, I seem to have run into a spot of trouble with my btrfs partition. I've got 4 x 8TB in a RAID1 BTRFS configuration. I'm running Debian Jessie 64 Bit, 4.9.0-0.bpo.2-amd64 kernel. Btrfs progs version v4.7.3 Server has 8GB of Ram. I was running duperemove using a hashfile, which seemed

Re: help : "bad tree block start" -> btrfs forced readonly

Hi, some news from the coal mine... Le 17/03/2017 à 11:03, Lionel Bouton a écrit : > [...] > I'm considering trying to use a 4 week old snapshot of the device to > find out if it was corrupted or not instead. It will still be a pain if > it works but rsync for less than a month of data is at

Re: help : "bad tree block start" -> btrfs forced readonly

bytenr mismatch, want=3415463870464, have=72340172838076673 >> ERROR: failed to read 3415463870464 >> >> Is there a way to remove part of the tree and keep the rest ? It could >> help minimize the time needed to restore data. > If you are able to experiment with writable snapshots,

Re: help : "bad tree block start" -> btrfs forced readonly

4 > > Is there a way to remove part of the tree and keep the rest ? It could > help minimize the time needed to restore data. If you are able to experiment with writable snapshots, you could try using "btrfs-corrupt-block" to kill the bad block, and see what btrfsck makes out of the

Re: help : "bad tree block start" -> btrfs forced readonly

be stored, it has 01010101 and recomputing the checksum of the garbage results in A85405B7. Found / wanted is also confusing here, since 01010101 is what it found, but A85405B7 is what it 'found out'. > Is there a way to remove part of the tree and keep the rest ? It could > help minimize the time need

Re: help : "bad tree block start" -> btrfs forced readonly

led on 3415463870464 found A85405B7 wanted 01010101 bytenr mismatch, want=3415463870464, have=72340172838076673 ERROR: failed to read 3415463870464 Is there a way to remove part of the tree and keep the rest ? It could help minimize the time needed to restore data. Lionel -- To unsubscribe from this list: s

Re: help : "bad tree block start" -> btrfs forced readonly

On 03/17/2017 09:11 AM, Lionel Bouton wrote: > Le 17/03/2017 à 05:32, Lionel Bouton a écrit : >> Hi, >> >> [...] >> I'll catch some sleep right now (it's 5:28 AM here) but I'll be able to >> work on this in 3 or 4 hours. > > I woke up to this : > > Mar 17 06:56:30 fileserver kernel:

Re: help : "bad tree block start" -> btrfs forced readonly

ead-only backup server and we are trying to find out if we can salvage this or if we start the full restore procedure. Help ? Lionel -- 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 a

help : "bad tree block start" -> btrfs forced readonly

device at the time of each reboot if it can help (I can relatively easily make rw copies and work on them without affecting the ro snapshots) and an earlier one from 4 weeks ago. Can someone please help me determine if I can save this filesystem and how ? I suspect there isn't much damage in quantity

Re: help!!! error when mount a btrfs file system

At 03/17/2017 01:36 AM, Liu Bo wrote: On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 08:23:05PM +0800, 李云甫 wrote: hi, buddy I have a file server with btrfs file system, it's work well for several months. but after last system reboot, the /dev/sdb become not mountable. below is the details. is there any

Re: help!!! error when mount a btrfs file system

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 08:23:05PM +0800, 李云甫 wrote: > hi, buddy > >I have a file server with btrfs file system, it's work well for several > months. > > but after last system reboot, the /dev/sdb become not mountable. > > below is the details. is there any advise? > > > ##Version 

help!!! error when mount a btrfs file system

hi, buddy I have a file server with btrfs file system, it's work well for several months. but after last system reboot, the /dev/sdb become not mountable. below is the details. is there any advise? ##Version info Fedora 25 Server Kernel 4.9.13-201.fc25.x86_64 btrfs-progs v4.6.1

help!!! error when mount a btrfs file system

hi, buddy I have a file server with btrfs file system, it's work well for several months. but after last system reboot, the /dev/sdb become not mountable. below is the details. is there any advise? ##Version info Fedora 25 Server Kernel 4.9.13-201.fc25.x86_64 btrfs-progs v4.6.1

Re: Help understanding autodefrag details

On 2017-02-10 09:21, Peter Zaitsev wrote: Hi, As I have been reading btrfs whitepaper it speaks about autodefrag in very generic terms - once random write in the file is detected it is put in the queue to be defragmented. Yet I could not find any specifics about this process described

Help understanding autodefrag details

Hi, As I have been reading btrfs whitepaper it speaks about autodefrag in very generic terms - once random write in the file is detected it is put in the queue to be defragmented. Yet I could not find any specifics about this process described anywhere. My use case is databases and as such

Re: File system is oddly full after kernel upgrade, balance doesn't help

y at this time. While on normal sized btrfs the limit before scaling becomes an issue seems to be a few hundred (under 1000 and for most under 500), it /may/ be that on a btrfs as small as your two- GiB, more than say 10 may be an issue. As I said, I don't /know/ if it'll help, but if y

Re: File system is oddly full after kernel upgrade, balance doesn't help

U/Linux >> >> This is the 2nd file system which showed these symptoms, so I thought >> it's more than happenstance. I don't remember what I did with the first >> one, but I somehow managed to fix it with balance, if I remember >> correctly, but it doesn't help with this one. >

Re: File system is oddly full after kernel upgrade, balance doesn't help

ec 21 17:24:18 UTC > 2016 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux > > This is the 2nd file system which showed these symptoms, so I thought > it's more than happenstance. I don't remember what I did with the first > one, but I somehow managed to fix it with balance, if I remember > correctl

File system is oddly full after kernel upgrade, balance doesn't help

these symptoms, so I thought it's more than happenstance. I don't remember what I did with the first one, but I somehow managed to fix it with balance, if I remember correctly, but it doesn't help with this one. FS state before any attempts to fix: Filesystem 1M-blocks Used

Re: Help please: BTRFS fs crashed due to bad removal of USB drive, no help from recovery procedures

> > To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org > Cc: "Xin Zhou" <xin.z...@gmx.com> > Subject: Re: Help please: BTRFS fs crashed due to bad removal of USB drive, > no help from recovery procedures > Xin Zhou <xin.z...@gmx.com> kirjoitti 17.12.2016 kello 22.27: >> >&g

Re: Help please: BTRFS fs crashed due to bad removal of USB drive, no help from recovery procedures

rom: "Jari Seppälä" <lihamakaroonilaati...@gmail.com> To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Cc: "Xin Zhou" <xin.z...@gmx.com> Subject: Re: Help please: BTRFS fs crashed due to bad removal of USB drive, no help from recovery procedures Xin Zhou <xin.z...@gmx.com> kirj

Re: Help please: BTRFS fs crashed due to bad removal of USB drive, no help from recovery procedures

ards, > Xin Hi Xin, I did follow all recovery procedures from man and wiki pages. Tools do not help as they thing there is no BTRFS fs anymore. However if I try to reformat the device I get: btrfs-progs v4.4 See http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org for more information. /dev/sdb1 appears to contain a

Re: Help please: BTRFS fs crashed due to bad removal of USB drive, no help from recovery procedures

oonilaati...@gmail.com> To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Help please: BTRFS fs crashed due to bad removal of USB drive, no help from recovery procedures Syslog tells: [ 135.446222] BTRFS error (device sdb1): system chunk array too small 0 < 97 [ 135.446260] BTRFS error (device

Help please: BTRFS fs crashed due to bad removal of USB drive, no help from recovery procedures

n system * fs on external SSD via USB * kernel 4.9.0 (tried with 4.8.13) * btrfs-tools 4.4 * Mythbuntu (Ubuntu) 16.04.1 LTS with latest fixes 2012-12-16 Any help appreciated. Around 300G of TV recordings on the drive, which of course will eventually come as replays. Jari -- *** Jari Seppälä -- T

Re: Help with stack trace

So it's btrfs problem, i catch hung again with 4.8.7, and i can't catch if ES data stored on ext4 Trace from 4.8.7: Nov 25 14:09:30 msq-k1-srv-ids-01 kernel: INFO: task btrfs-transacti:4143 blocked for more than 120 seconds. Nov 25 14:09:30 msq-k1-srv-ids-01 kernel: Not tainted 4.8.0-1-amd64

Help with stack trace

Hi, i use btrfs as a storage for root and data for ElasticSearch servers and i catch strange bug then servers hungs. But i get this stack trace only if start Elastic. Debian 8 x64 Linux msq-k1-srv-ids-02 4.8.0-1-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 4.8.5-1 (2016-10-28) x86_64 GNU/Linux Also catch it on Debian

Re: Help repairing a partition

a pile of bug fixes, which might be useful. So that'd be either: btrfs-progs-4.8.1-2.fc26 or btrfs-progs-4.7.3-1.fc26 And rpmbuild --rebuild them for F23 and then install. I would not downgrade to 4.4.1 - it's not that it's bad, it's just a waste of time if it can't help fix the problem which is very

Re: Help repairing a partition

used err is 0 >> total csum bytes: 161187492 >> total tree bytes: 2021015552 >> total fs tree bytes: 1725759488 >> total extent tree bytes: 86228992 >> btree space waste bytes: 386160897 >> file data blocks allocated: 1269363683328 >> referenced

Re: Help repairing a partition

t; btree space waste bytes: 386160897 > file data blocks allocated: 1269363683328 > referenced 164438126592 > > How do I repair this? Yeah good question. I can't tell from the message whether different counts is a bad thing, or if it's just a notification, or what. Yet again b

Help repairing a partition

Hi, (please CC me in replies, I'm not subscribed) I'm using kernel 4.7.7-100.fc23 with btrfs-progs v4.7.1. I had my /home, /var, and /opt as subvolumes in a btrfs partition. Last night btrfs failed, and I was unable to mount it normally (leading to boot failures). The journal had messages like

Re: Some help with the code.

On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 04:22:25PM +0100, Tomasz Kusmierz wrote: > This is predominantly for maintainers: > > I've noticed that there is a lot of code for btrfs ... and after few > glimpses I've noticed that there are occurrences which beg for some > refactoring to make it less of a pain to

Some help with the code.

This is predominantly for maintainers: I've noticed that there is a lot of code for btrfs ... and after few glimpses I've noticed that there are occurrences which beg for some refactoring to make it less of a pain to maintain. I'm speaking of occurrences where: - within a function there are

[PATCH 12/13] btrfs-progs: mkfs: help and usage now to to stdout

Signed-off-by: David Sterba --- mkfs.c | 38 +++--- 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) diff --git a/mkfs.c b/mkfs.c index f063323903dc..ef0b099a58d7 100644 --- a/mkfs.c +++ b/mkfs.c @@ -344,31 +344,31 @@ static int

Re: Pointers to mirroring partitions (w/ encryption?) help?

04.06.2016 20:31, B. S. пишет: >>> >>> Yeah, when it comes to FDE, you either have to make your peace with >>> trusting the manufacturer, or you can't. If you are going to boot >>> your system with a traditional boot loader, an unencrypted partition >>> is mandatory. >> >> No, it is not with grub2

Re: Pointers to mirroring partitions (w/ encryption?) help?

04.06.2016 22:05, Chris Murphy пишет: ... >> >> Yeah, when it comes to FDE, you either have to make your peace with >> trusting the manufacturer, or you can't. If you are going to boot your >> system with a traditional boot loader, an unencrypted partition is >> mandatory. > > /boot can be

Re: Pointers to mirroring partitions (w/ encryption?) help?

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Justin Brown wrote: > Here's some thoughts: > >> Assume a CD sized (680MB) /boot > > Some distros carry patches for grub that allow booting from Btrfs Upstream GRUB has had Btrfs support for a long time. There's been no need for distros

Re: Pointers to mirroring partitions (w/ encryption?) help?

orthogonal to the OP question. In the end, the OP is about all this 'stuff' landing at once, the majority btrfs centric, and a call for help finding the end of the string to pull on in a linear way. e.g., as pointed out, most articles premising FDE, which is not in play per OP. The OP requestin

Re: Pointers to mirroring partitions (w/ encryption?) help?

04.06.2016 04:39, Justin Brown пишет: > Here's some thoughts: > >> Assume a CD sized (680MB) /boot > > Some distros carry patches for grub that allow booting from Btrfs, > so no separate /boot file system is required. (Fedora does not; > Ubuntu -- and therefore probably all Debians -- does.) >

Re: Pointers to mirroring partitions (w/ encryption?) help?

eeping only the OS on / and mondoarchiving it nightly, and rsync'ing /everythingelse seems to be doing the job. Perhaps even keeping the 'after the failure' complexity level down. On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 3:30 PM, B. S. <bs27...@gmail.com> wrote: Hallo. I'm continuing on sinking in to btrfs, so point

Re: Pointers to mirroring partitions (w/ encryption?) help?

the FS project). On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 3:30 PM, B. S. <bs27...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hallo. I'm continuing on sinking in to btrfs, so pointers to concise help > articles appreciated. I've got a couple new home systems, so perhaps it's > time to investigate encryption, and given

Pointers to mirroring partitions (w/ encryption?) help?

Hallo. I'm continuing on sinking in to btrfs, so pointers to concise help articles appreciated. I've got a couple new home systems, so perhaps it's time to investigate encryption, and given the bit rot I've seen here, perhaps time to mirror volumes so the wonderful btrfs self-healing

Re: Help ! "btrfs check" looping recursive

Hi there, Thanks for your reply Duncan ! Le 15/04/2016 02:24, Duncan wrote : > Swâmi Petaramesh posted on Thu, 14 Apr 2016 18:56:29 +0200 as excerpted: > >> It seems that i have a "btrfs check" process that’s stuck in an infinite >> recursive loop… > Given the prompt above, you're running from

Re: Help ! "btrfs check" looping recursive

Swâmi Petaramesh posted on Thu, 14 Apr 2016 18:56:29 +0200 as excerpted: > It seems that i have a "btrfs check" process that’s stuck in an infinite > recursive loop… > > How could I end this without breaking my filesystem ? ... > root@PartedMagic:~# btrfs check --repair /dev/VGZ/LINUX >

Help ! "btrfs check" looping recursive

Hi folks, It seems that i have a "btrfs check" process that’s stuck in an infinite recursive loop… How could I end this without breaking my filesystem ? Help much needed & appreciated… TIA. Kind regards. root@PartedMagic:~# btrfs check --repair /dev/VGZ/LINUX enabling repair

Re: Re: unable to mount btrfs partition, please help :(

md mismatch count happens when there's a mismatch between data strip and parity strip(s). So this is a lot of mismatches. I think you need to take this problem to the linux-raid@ list, I don't think anyone on this list is going to be able to help with this portion of the problem. I'm

Re: unable to mount btrfs partition, please help :(

On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 6:19 AM, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > On Sonntag, 20. März 2016 10:18:26 CET Patrick Tschackert wrote: >> > I think in retrospect the safe way to do these kinds of Virtual Box >> > updates, which require kernel module updates, would have been to >> >

Re: unable to mount btrfs partition, please help :(

On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 3:18 AM, Patrick Tschackert wrote: > Thanks for answering again! > So, first of all I installed a newer kernel from the backports as per > Nicholas D Steeves suggestion: > > $ apt-get install -t jessie-backports linux-image-4.3.0-0.bpo.1-amd64 > >

Re: unable to mount btrfs partition, please help :(

On Sonntag, 20. März 2016 10:18:26 CET Patrick Tschackert wrote: > > I think in retrospect the safe way to do these kinds of Virtual Box > > updates, which require kernel module updates, would have been to > > shutdown the VM and stop the array. *shrug* > > > After this, I think I'll just do

Re: unable to mount btrfs partition, please help :(

ackert" <killing-t...@gmx.de>, "Btrfs BTRFS" <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org> Betreff: Re: unable to mount btrfs partition, please help :( On Samstag, 19. März 2016 19:34:55 CET Chris Murphy wrote: > >>> $ uname -a > >>> Linux vmhost 3.16.0-4-amd64 #1 S

Re: unable to mount btrfs partition, please help :(

On Samstag, 19. März 2016 19:34:55 CET Chris Murphy wrote: > >>> $ uname -a > >>> Linux vmhost 3.16.0-4-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 3.16.7-ckt20-1+deb8u4 > >>> (2016-02-29) x86_64 GNU/Linux > >> > >>This is old. You should upgrade to something newer, ideally 4.5 but > >>4.4.6 is good also, and then oldest

Re: unable to mount btrfs partition, please help :(

; appropriate but again someone else a while back had success with > zero-log, but it's hard to say if the two cases are really similar and > maybe that person just got lucky. Both of those change the file system > in irreversible ways, that's why I suggest waiting or asking on IRC. Th

Re: unable to mount btrfs partition, please help :(

Patrick Tschackert posted on Sat, 19 Mar 2016 23:15:33 +0100 as excerpted: > I'm growing increasingly desperate, can anyone help me? No need to be desperate. As the sysadmin's rule of backups states, simple form, you either have at least one level of backup, or you are by your (in)act

Re: unable to mount btrfs partition, please help :(

On 19 March 2016 at 21:34, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 5:35 PM, Patrick Tschackert > wrote: $ uname -a Linux vmhost 3.16.0-4-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 3.16.7-ckt20-1+deb8u4 (2016-02-29) x86_64 GNU/Linux >>>This is old. You

Re: unable to mount btrfs partition, please help :(

On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 5:35 PM, Patrick Tschackert wrote: > Hi Chris, > > thank you for answering so quickly! > >> Try 'btrfs check' without any options first. > $ btrfs check /dev/mapper/storage > checksum verify failed on 36340960788480 found 8F8E1006 wanted 4AA1BC89 >

Re: unable to mount btrfs partition, please help :(

2016 at 12:02 AM, Chris Murphy <li...@colorremedies.com> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Patrick Tschackert <killing-t...@gmx.de> > wrote: > >> I'm growing increasingly desperate, can anyone help me? I'm thinking >> of trying one or more of the following, but

Re: unable to mount btrfs partition, please help :(

On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Patrick Tschackert <killing-t...@gmx.de> wrote: > I'm growing increasingly desperate, can anyone help me? I'm thinking > of trying one or more of the following, but would like an informed > opinion: > 1) btrfs check --fix-crc > 2) btrfs-check

unable to mount btrfs partition, please help :(

mismatch, want=36340960788480, have=4530277753793296986 Couldn't read chunk tree Open ctree failed create failed (Success) I'm growing increasingly desperate, can anyone help me? I'm thinking of trying one or more of the following, but would like an informed opinion: 1) btrfs check --fix-crc 2)

Re: [PATCH v2 RESEND] btrfs: maintain consistency in logging to help debugging

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:22:58PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > Optional Label may or may not be set, or it might be set at some time > later. However while debugging to search through the kernel logs the > scripts would need the logs to be consistent, so logs search key words > shouldn't depend on

Re: [PATCH v2 RESEND] btrfs: maintain consistency in logging to help debugging

On 03/17/2016 12:18 AM, David Sterba wrote: On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:22:58PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: Optional Label may or may not be set, or it might be set at some time later. However while debugging to search through the kernel logs the scripts would need the logs to be consistent, so

[PATCH v2 RESEND] btrfs: maintain consistency in logging to help debugging

Optional Label may or may not be set, or it might be set at some time later. However while debugging to search through the kernel logs the scripts would need the logs to be consistent, so logs search key words shouldn't depend on the optional variables, instead fsid is better. Signed-off-by:

Re: BTRFS Raid 6 corruption - please help with restore

On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Stuart Gittings <gitting...@gmail.com> wrote: > All devices are present. Btrfs if show is listed below and shows they are > all there. I'm afraid btrfs dev scan does not help What do you get for 'btrfs check' (do not use --repair yet) --

Re: BTRFS Raid 6 corruption - please help with restore

On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 3:47 AM, Stuart Gittings <gitting...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi - I have some corruption on a 12 drive Raid 6 volume. Here's the > basics - if someone could help with restore it would save me a ton of > time (and some data loss - I have critical data backed up

BTRFS Raid 6 corruption - please help with restore

Hi - I have some corruption on a 12 drive Raid 6 volume. Here's the basics - if someone could help with restore it would save me a ton of time (and some data loss - I have critical data backed up, but not all). stuart@debian:~$ uname -a Linux debian 4.3.0-0.bpo.1-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 4.3.3-7~bpo8

Re: Can you help explain these OOM crashes?

uperblock in search of match. And get_anon_bdev() is called from such callbacks... In principle, we could change locking rules for case when test callback is NULL, except that it's also called from ns_set_super(), which *does* come along with non-NULL test() (see mount_ns()), so that really doe

Re: Can you help explain these OOM crashes?

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:20:29AM -0800, Marc MERLIN wrote: > Which kind of RAM am I missing? :) > > Thanks, > Marc > > [46320.200703] btrfs: page allocation failure: order:1, mode:0x2204020 > [46320.221174] CPU: 7 PID: 12576 Comm: btrfs Not tainted > 4.4.2-amd64-i915-volpreempt-20160213bc1 #3

Can you help explain these OOM crashes?

Which kind of RAM am I missing? :) Thanks, Marc [46320.200703] btrfs: page allocation failure: order:1, mode:0x2204020 [46320.221174] CPU: 7 PID: 12576 Comm: btrfs Not tainted 4.4.2-amd64-i915-volpreempt-20160213bc1 #3 [46320.249161] Hardware name: System manufacturer System Product

[PATCH v2 03/13] btrfs: maintain consistency in logging to help debugging

Optional Label may or may not be set, or it might be set at some time later. However while debugging to search through the kernel logs the scripts would need the logs to be consistent, so logs search key words shouldn't depend on the optional variables, instead fsid is better. Signed-off-by:

Re: btrfs check help

and it looks even worse. please help. [root@3dcpc5 ~]# btrfs check --repair /dev/sdk enabling repair mode Checking filesystem on /dev/sdk UUID: 6a742786-070d-4557-9e67-c73b84967bf5 checking extents Fixed 0 roots. checking free space cache cache and super generation don't match,

Re: btrfs check help

My experience/interpretation of the 2 checks is that it is OK, see some more comments inserted below. Hopefully a developer of btrfs-progs can comment in more detail. > [root@3dcpc5 ~]# btrfs check --repair /dev/sdk > enabling repair mode > Checking filesystem on /dev/sdk > UUID:

Re: btrfs check help

; But at least, some other users with more complicated problem(with inode >> nbytes error) fixed it. >> >> The last decision is still on you anyway. > > I will do it on the first device from the “fi show” output and report. ok this doesn’t look good. i ran —repair and chec

Re: btrfs check help

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 4:25 AM, Vincent Olivier wrote: > > [root@3dcpc5 ~]# btrfs check --repair /dev/sdk > enabling repair mode > Checking filesystem on /dev/sdk > UUID: 6a742786-070d-4557-9e67-c73b84967bf5 > checking extents > Fixed 0 roots. > checking free space cache > cache

Re: btrfs check help

> On Nov 25, 2015, at 8:44 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > > Vincent Olivier wrote on 2015/11/25 11:51 -0500: >> I should probably point out that there is 64GB of RAM on this machine and >> it’s a dual Xeon processor (LGA2011-3) system. Also, there is only Btrfs >>

Re: btrfs check help

I should probably point out that there is 64GB of RAM on this machine and it’s a dual Xeon processor (LGA2011-3) system. Also, there is only Btrfs served via Samba and the kernel panic was caused Btrfs (as per what I remember from the log on the screen just before I rebooted) and happened in

Re: btrfs check help

[...] > Ca I get a strong confirmation that I should run with the “—repair” option on > each device? Thanks. > > Vincent > > > Checking filesystem on /dev/sdk > UUID: 6a742786-070d-4557-9e67-c73b84967bf5 > checking extents [o] > checking free space cache [.] > root 5 inode 1341670 errors 400,

Re: btrfs check help

On 2015-11-24 12:06, Vincent Olivier wrote: Hi, Woke up this morning with a kernel panic (for which I do not have details). Please find below the output for btrfs check. Is this normal ? What should I do ? Arch Linux 4.2.5. Btrfs-utils 4.3.1. 17x4TB RAID10. You get bonus points for being on a

Re: btrfs check help

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 03:28:28PM -0500, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: > On 2015-11-24 12:06, Vincent Olivier wrote: > >Hi, > > > >Woke up this morning with a kernel panic (for which I do not have details). > >Please find below the output for btrfs check. Is this normal ? What should I > >do ?

btrfs check help

Hi, Woke up this morning with a kernel panic (for which I do not have details). Please find below the output for btrfs check. Is this normal ? What should I do ? Arch Linux 4.2.5. Btrfs-utils 4.3.1. 17x4TB RAID10. Regards, Vincent [root@3dcpc5 ~]# btrfs check /dev/sdk Checking filesystem on

Re: corrupted RAID1: unsuccessful recovery / help needed

Lukas Pirl posted on Fri, 30 Oct 2015 10:43:41 +1300 as excerpted: > If there is one subvolume that contains all other (read only) snapshots > and there is insufficient storage to copy them all separately: > Is there an elegant way to preserve those when moving the data across > disks? AFAIK, no

Re: corrupted RAID1: unsuccessful recovery / help needed

Lukas Pirl posted on Fri, 30 Oct 2015 10:43:41 +1300 as excerpted: > Is e.g. "balance" also influenced by the userspace tools or does > the kernel the actual work? btrfs balance is done "online", that is, on the (writable-)mounted filesystem, and the kernel does the real work. It's the tools

Re: corrupted RAID1: unsuccessful recovery / help needed

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:58:47AM +, Duncan wrote: > Lukas Pirl posted on Fri, 30 Oct 2015 10:43:41 +1300 as excerpted: > > > If there is one subvolume that contains all other (read only) snapshots > > and there is insufficient storage to copy them all separately: > > Is there an elegant way

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   >