Re: Fwd: Read time tree block corruption detected

[Tyler Richmond <t.d.richmond@gmail.com>]

Qu,

Sorry to resurrect this thread, but I just ran into something that I
can't really just ignore. I've found a folder that is full of files
which I guess have been broken somehow. I found a backup and restored
them, but I want to delete this folder of broken files. But whenever I
try, the fs is forced into readonly mode again. I just finished
another btrfs check --repair but it didn't fix the problem.

https://pastebin.com/eTV3s3fr

 I'm already on btrfs-progs v5.7. Any new suggestions?


On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 9:52 AM Tyler Richmond <t.d.richmond@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 5.6.1 also failed the same way. Here's the usage output. This is the
> part where you see I've been using RAID5 haha
>
> WARNING: RAID56 detected, not implemented
> Overall:
>     Device size:                  60.03TiB
>     Device allocated:             98.06GiB
>     Device unallocated:           59.93TiB
>     Device missing:                  0.00B
>     Used:                         92.56GiB
>     Free (estimated):                0.00B      (min: 8.00EiB)
>     Data ratio:                       0.00
>     Metadata ratio:                   2.00
>     Global reserve:              512.00MiB      (used: 0.00B)
>     Multiple profiles:                  no
>
> Data,RAID5: Size:40.35TiB, Used:40.12TiB (99.42%)
>    /dev/sdh        8.07TiB
>    /dev/sdf        8.07TiB
>    /dev/sdg        8.07TiB
>    /dev/sdd        8.07TiB
>    /dev/sdc        8.07TiB
>    /dev/sde        8.07TiB
>
> Metadata,RAID1: Size:49.00GiB, Used:46.28GiB (94.44%)
>    /dev/sdh       34.00GiB
>    /dev/sdf       32.00GiB
>    /dev/sdg       32.00GiB
>
> System,RAID1: Size:32.00MiB, Used:2.20MiB (6.87%)
>    /dev/sdf       32.00MiB
>    /dev/sdg       32.00MiB
>
> Unallocated:
>    /dev/sdh        2.81TiB
>    /dev/sdf        2.81TiB
>    /dev/sdg        2.81TiB
>    /dev/sdd        1.03TiB
>    /dev/sdc        1.03TiB
>    /dev/sde        1.03TiB
>
> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 1:47 AM Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2020/5/8 下午1:12, Tyler Richmond wrote:
> > > If this is saying there's no extra space for metadata, is that why
> > > adding more files often makes the system hang for 30-90s? Is there
> > > anything I should do about that?
> >
> > I'm not sure about the hang though.
> >
> > It would be nice to give more info to diagnosis.
> > The output of 'btrfs fi usage' is useful for space usage problem.
> >
> > But the common idea is, to keep at 1~2 Gi unallocated (not avaiable
> > space in vanilla df command) space for btrfs.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Qu
> >
> > >
> > > Thank you so much for all of your help. I love how flexible BTRFS is
> > > but when things go wrong it's very hard for me to troubleshoot.
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 1:07 AM Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 2020/5/8 下午12:23, Tyler Richmond wrote:
> > >>> Something went wrong:
> > >>>
> > >>> Reinitialize checksum tree
> > >>> Unable to find block group for 0
> > >>> Unable to find block group for 0
> > >>> Unable to find block group for 0
> > >>> ctree.c:2272: split_leaf: BUG_ON `1` triggered, value 1
> > >>> btrfs(+0x6dd94)[0x55a933af7d94]
> > >>> btrfs(+0x71b94)[0x55a933afbb94]
> > >>> btrfs(btrfs_search_slot+0x11f0)[0x55a933afd6c8]
> > >>> btrfs(btrfs_csum_file_block+0x432)[0x55a933b19d09]
> > >>> btrfs(+0x360b2)[0x55a933ac00b2]
> > >>> btrfs(+0x46a3e)[0x55a933ad0a3e]
> > >>> btrfs(main+0x98)[0x55a933a9fe88]
> > >>> /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xf3)[0x7f263ed550b3]
> > >>> btrfs(_start+0x2e)[0x55a933a9fa0e]
> > >>> Aborted
> > >>
> > >> This means no space for extra metadata...
> > >>
> > >> Anyway the csum tree problem shouldn't be a big thing, you could leave
> > >> it and call it a day.
> > >>
> > >> BTW, as long as btrfs check reports no extra problem for the inode
> > >> generation, it should be pretty safe to use the fs.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Qu
> > >>>
> > >>> I just noticed I have btrfs-progs 5.6 installed and 5.6.1 is
> > >>> available. I'll let that try overnight?
> > >>>
> > >>> On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 8:11 PM Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 2020/5/7 下午11:52, Tyler Richmond wrote:
> > >>>>> Thank you for helping. The end result of the scan was:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> [1/7] checking root items
> > >>>>> [2/7] checking extents
> > >>>>> [3/7] checking free space cache
> > >>>>> [4/7] checking fs roots
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Good news is, your fs is still mostly fine.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> [5/7] checking only csums items (without verifying data)
> > >>>>> there are no extents for csum range 0-69632
> > >>>>> csum exists for 0-69632 but there is no extent record
> > >>>>> ...
> > >>>>> ...
> > >>>>> there are no extents for csum range 946692096-946827264
> > >>>>> csum exists for 946692096-946827264 but there is no extent record
> > >>>>> there are no extents for csum range 946831360-947912704
> > >>>>> csum exists for 946831360-947912704 but there is no extent record
> > >>>>> ERROR: errors found in csum tree
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Only extent tree is corrupted.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Normally btrfs check --init-csum-tree should be able to handle it.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> But still, please be sure you're using the latest btrfs-progs to fix it.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks,
> > >>>> Qu
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> [6/7] checking root refs
> > >>>>> [7/7] checking quota groups skipped (not enabled on this FS)
> > >>>>> found 44157956026368 bytes used, error(s) found
> > >>>>> total csum bytes: 42038602716
> > >>>>> total tree bytes: 49688616960
> > >>>>> total fs tree bytes: 1256427520
> > >>>>> total extent tree bytes: 1709105152
> > >>>>> btree space waste bytes: 3172727316
> > >>>>> file data blocks allocated: 261625653436416
> > >>>>>  referenced 47477768499200
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> What do I need to do to fix all of this?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 1:52 AM Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On 2020/5/7 下午1:43, Tyler Richmond wrote:
> > >>>>>>> Well, the repair doesn't look terribly successful.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> parent transid verify failed on 218620880703488 wanted 6875841 found 6876224
> > >>>>>>> parent transid verify failed on 218620880703488 wanted 6875841 found 6876224
> > >>>>>>> parent transid verify failed on 218620880703488 wanted 6875841 found 6876224
> > >>>>>>> Ignoring transid failure
> > >>>>>>> ERROR: child eb corrupted: parent bytenr=225049956061184 item=84
> > >>>>>>> parent level=1
> > >>>>>>>                                             child level=4
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> This means there are more problems, not only the hash name mismatch.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> This means the fs is already corrupted, the name hash is just one
> > >>>>>> unrelated symptom.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> The only good news is, btrfs-progs abort the transaction, thus no
> > >>>>>> further damage to the fs.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Please run a plain btrfs-check to show what's the problem first.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>>> Qu
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> parent transid verify failed on 218620880703488 wanted 6875841 found 6876224
> > >>>>>>> Ignoring transid failure
> > >>>>>>> ERROR: child eb corrupted: parent bytenr=225049956061184 item=84
> > >>>>>>> parent level=1
> > >>>>>>>                                             child level=4
> > >>>>>>> parent transid verify failed on 218620880703488 wanted 6875841 found 6876224
> > >>>>>>> Ignoring transid failure
> > >>>>>>> ERROR: child eb corrupted: parent bytenr=225049956061184 item=84
> > >>>>>>> parent level=1
> > >>>>>>>                                             child level=4
> > >>>>>>> parent transid verify failed on 218620880703488 wanted 6875841 found 6876224
> > >>>>>>> Ignoring transid failure
> > >>>>>>> ERROR: child eb corrupted: parent bytenr=225049956061184 item=84
> > >>>>>>> parent level=1
> > >>>>>>>                                             child level=4
> > >>>>>>> parent transid verify failed on 218620880703488 wanted 6875841 found 6876224
> > >>>>>>> Ignoring transid failure
> > >>>>>>> ERROR: child eb corrupted: parent bytenr=225049956061184 item=84
> > >>>>>>> parent level=1
> > >>>>>>>                                             child level=4
> > >>>>>>> parent transid verify failed on 218620880703488 wanted 6875841 found 6876224
> > >>>>>>> Ignoring transid failure
> > >>>>>>> ERROR: child eb corrupted: parent bytenr=225049956061184 item=84
> > >>>>>>> parent level=1
> > >>>>>>>                                             child level=4
> > >>>>>>> parent transid verify failed on 218620880703488 wanted 6875841 found 6876224
> > >>>>>>> Ignoring transid failure
> > >>>>>>> ERROR: child eb corrupted: parent bytenr=225049956061184 item=84
> > >>>>>>> parent level=1
> > >>>>>>>                                             child level=4
> > >>>>>>> parent transid verify failed on 218620880703488 wanted 6875841 found 6876224
> > >>>>>>> Ignoring transid failure
> > >>>>>>> ERROR: child eb corrupted: parent bytenr=225049956061184 item=84
> > >>>>>>> parent level=1
> > >>>>>>>                                             child level=4
> > >>>>>>> parent transid verify failed on 218620880703488 wanted 6875841 found 6876224
> > >>>>>>> Ignoring transid failure
> > >>>>>>> ERROR: child eb corrupted: parent bytenr=225049956061184 item=84
> > >>>>>>> parent level=1
> > >>>>>>>                                             child level=4
> > >>>>>>> parent transid verify failed on 218620880703488 wanted 6875841 found 6876224
> > >>>>>>> Ignoring transid failure
> > >>>>>>> ERROR: child eb corrupted: parent bytenr=225049956061184 item=84
> > >>>>>>> parent level=1
> > >>>>>>>                                             child level=4
> > >>>>>>> parent transid verify failed on 218620880703488 wanted 6875841 found 6876224
> > >>>>>>> Ignoring transid failure
> > >>>>>>> ERROR: child eb corrupted: parent bytenr=225049956061184 item=84
> > >>>>>>> parent level=1
> > >>>>>>>                                             child level=4
> > >>>>>>> ERROR: failed to zero log tree: -17
> > >>>>>>> ERROR: attempt to start transaction over already running one
> > >>>>>>> WARNING: reserved space leaked, flag=0x4 bytes_reserved=4096
> > >>>>>>> extent buffer leak: start 225049066086400 len 4096
> > >>>>>>> extent buffer leak: start 225049066086400 len 4096
> > >>>>>>> WARNING: dirty eb leak (aborted trans): start 225049066086400 len 4096
> > >>>>>>> extent buffer leak: start 225049066094592 len 4096
> > >>>>>>> extent buffer leak: start 225049066094592 len 4096
> > >>>>>>> WARNING: dirty eb leak (aborted trans): start 225049066094592 len 4096
> > >>>>>>> extent buffer leak: start 225049066102784 len 4096
> > >>>>>>> extent buffer leak: start 225049066102784 len 4096
> > >>>>>>> WARNING: dirty eb leak (aborted trans): start 225049066102784 len 4096
> > >>>>>>> extent buffer leak: start 225049066131456 len 4096
> > >>>>>>> extent buffer leak: start 225049066131456 len 4096
> > >>>>>>> WARNING: dirty eb leak (aborted trans): start 225049066131456 len 4096
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> What is going on?
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 9:30 PM Tyler Richmond <t.d.richmond@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Chris, I had used the correct mountpoint in the command. I just edited
> > >>>>>>>> it in the email to be /mountpoint for consistency.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Qu, I'll try the repair. Fingers crossed!
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 9:13 PM Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On 2020/5/7 上午5:54, Tyler Richmond wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>> Hello,
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> I looked up this error and it basically says ask a developer to
> > >>>>>>>>>> determine if it's a false error or not. I just started getting some
> > >>>>>>>>>> slow response times, and looked at the dmesg log to find a ton of
> > >>>>>>>>>> these errors.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> [192088.446299] BTRFS critical (device sdh): corrupt leaf: root=5
> > >>>>>>>>>> block=203510940835840 slot=4 ino=1311670, invalid inode generation:
> > >>>>>>>>>> has 18446744073709551492 expect [0, 6875827]
> > >>>>>>>>>> [192088.449823] BTRFS error (device sdh): block=203510940835840 read
> > >>>>>>>>>> time tree block corruption detected
> > >>>>>>>>>> [192088.459238] BTRFS critical (device sdh): corrupt leaf: root=5
> > >>>>>>>>>> block=203510940835840 slot=4 ino=1311670, invalid inode generation:
> > >>>>>>>>>> has 18446744073709551492 expect [0, 6875827]
> > >>>>>>>>>> [192088.462773] BTRFS error (device sdh): block=203510940835840 read
> > >>>>>>>>>> time tree block corruption detected
> > >>>>>>>>>> [192088.464711] BTRFS critical (device sdh): corrupt leaf: root=5
> > >>>>>>>>>> block=203510940835840 slot=4 ino=1311670, invalid inode generation:
> > >>>>>>>>>> has 18446744073709551492 expect [0, 6875827]
> > >>>>>>>>>> [192088.468457] BTRFS error (device sdh): block=203510940835840 read
> > >>>>>>>>>> time tree block corruption detected
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> btrfs device stats, however, doesn't show any errors.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Is there anything I should do about this, or should I just continue
> > >>>>>>>>>> using my array as normal?
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> This is caused by older kernel underflow inode generation.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Latest btrfs-progs can fix it, using btrfs check --repair.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Or you can go safer, by manually locating the inode using its inode
> > >>>>>>>>> number (1311670), and copy it to some new location using previous
> > >>>>>>>>> working kernel, then delete the old file, copy the new one back to fix it.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>>>>>> Qu
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Thank you!
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> >