From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from frost.carfax.org.uk ([85.119.82.111]:55951 "EHLO frost.carfax.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753520AbbKXUcN (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Nov 2015 15:32:13 -0500 Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 20:32:10 +0000 From: Hugo Mills To: Austin S Hemmelgarn Cc: Vincent Olivier , linux-btrfs Subject: Re: btrfs check help Message-ID: <20151124203210.GR24333@carfax.org.uk> References: <5654C86C.9080800@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="rTHIjeKG9uUlSyhr" In-Reply-To: <5654C86C.9080800@gmail.com> Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --rTHIjeKG9uUlSyhr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline 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 ? Arch Linux 4.2.5. Btrfs-utils 4.3.1. 17x4TB RAID10. > You get bonus points for being on a reasonably up-to-date kernel and > userspace :) > > This is actually a pretty tame check result for a filesystem that's > been through kernel panic. I think everything listed here is safe > for check to fix, but I would suggest waiting until the devs provide > opinions before actually running with --repair. I would also > suggest comparing results between the different devices in the FS, > if things are drastically different, you may have issues that check > can't fix on it's own. > >[root@3dcpc5 ~]# btrfs check /dev/sdk > >Checking filesystem on /dev/sdk > >UUID: 6a742786-070d-4557-9e67-c73b84967bf5 > >checking extents > >checking free space cache > >checking fs roots > These next two lines are errors, but I'm not 100% certain if it's > safe to have check fix them: > >root 5 inode 1341670 errors 400, nbytes wrong > >root 11406 inode 1341670 errors 400, nbytes wrong I think so yes. > This next one is also an error, and I am fairly certain that it's > safe to have check fix as long as the number at the end is not too > big. > >found 19328809638262 bytes used err is 1 Agreed. Hugo. > The rest is just reference info > >total csum bytes: 18849042724 > >total tree bytes: 27389886464 > >total fs tree bytes: 4449746944 > >total extent tree bytes: 3075457024 > >btree space waste bytes: 2880474254 > The only other thing I know that's worth mentioning is that if the > numbers on these next two lines don't match, you may be missing some > writes from right before the crash. > >file data blocks allocated: 19430708535296 > >referenced 20123773407232 -- Hugo Mills | Great films about cricket: Umpire of the Rising Sun hugo@... carfax.org.uk | http://carfax.org.uk/ | PGP: E2AB1DE4 | --rTHIjeKG9uUlSyhr Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJWVMlKAAoJEFheFHXiqx3kgkMP/Rk+fbVkSyxppt+w59xcroph GeuPbn6H2h1p8ZJWAz6RsM6P0xu/4hTgvmUZckV/xrjHGx2ciksSEi6xr7MNXpSL xuOc6edUbwaXACQZE2EOjKcrE3yM6V+zpHakMP2+AqV0sRBsdgS0PJHFAQ3LCGOp xgX5IzsNROrN9vYLnqGVYKYa8sGetemNUcoMs9vUadr9mqQ5TEGn6RdirMRxwK41 9yD4r2fckXGMF+1xaNA2FvaM/tQAdPPFhEjZe3egmjQfjgodWtmRuMi1dPSM9xKN +L9GAbK6IV6yxJ8PtPsP7Xv95HbMKgtTi5UhdQqY/k77mkq/qbjYHloOD3apkWpu Ep3KoNLHezR4oywUZPoZhhs29SU5IptPRk0uizKAV/eAVovwI/VkZd7/5zbjbG72 3okuXUK2NTIecvdlKKtl8evxLW4Ei+XPTppE4BeFr3yqY1vLwO+HHOFSoK8DHl94 p0rsgtnBX5YGzig8A3sajsujIV5+5EqSavQg6DK7jN6fH5EXaKnZ/A0ACdaYDSR8 YgoXiMM5vaWMiZIKf8svvDA9lsJU8Ik8zWVpej5HoszRCzuSJp5m3sdw0WhOJpos F+PxgNSQHyPy9upD0TPZq0RNbRrXxC6XlygJYXFggPS7lS18X9P1/enPXOeDlvoB STRBNL5E6OR/McCn5R08 =xbnT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --rTHIjeKG9uUlSyhr--