Re: Fwd: Read time tree block corruption detected

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

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?

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!
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
>