Re: Fwd: Read time tree block corruption detected

[Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 23569 bytes --]



On 2020/8/24 上午10:47, Tyler Richmond wrote:
> Qu,
> 
> Finally finished another repair and captured the output.
> 
> https://pastebin.com/ffcbwvd8
> 
> Does that show you what you need? Or should I still do one in lowmem mode?

Lowmem mode (no need for --repair) is recommended since original mode
doesn't detect the inode generation problem.

And it's already btrfs-progs v5.7 right?

THanks,
Qu
> 
> Thanks for your help!
> 
> On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 12:28 AM Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2020/8/23 上午10:49, Tyler Richmond wrote:
>>> Well, I can guarantee that I didn't create this fs before 2015 (just
>>> checked the order confirmation from when I bought the server), but I
>>> may have just used whatever was in the Ubuntu package manager at the
>>> time. So maybe I don't have a v0 ref?
>>
>> Then btrfs-image shouldn't report that.
>>
>> There is an item smaller than any valid btrfs item, normally it means
>> it's a v0 ref.
>> If not, then it could be a bigger problem.
>>
>> Could you please provide the full btrfs-check output?
>> Also, if possible result from "btrfs check --mode=lowmem" would also help.
>>
>> Also, if you really go "--repair", then the full output would also be
>> needed to determine what's going wrong.
>> There is a report about "btrfs check --repair" didn't repair the inode
>> generation, if that's the case we must have a bug then.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Qu
>>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 10:31 PM Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2020/8/23 上午9:51, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2020/8/23 上午9:15, Tyler Richmond wrote:
>>>>>> Is my best bet just to downgrade the kernel and then try to delete the
>>>>>> broken files? Or should I rebuild from scratch? Just don't know
>>>>>> whether it's worth the time to try and figure this out or if the
>>>>>> problems stem from the FS being too old and it's beyond trying to
>>>>>> repair.
>>>>>
>>>>> All invalid inode generations, should be able to be repaired by latest
>>>>> btrfs-check.
>>>>>
>>>>> If not, please provide the btrfs-image dump for us to determine what's
>>>>> going wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Qu
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 8:18 AM Tyler Richmond <t.d.richmond@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I didn't check dmesg during the btrfs check, but that was the only
>>>>>>> output during the rm -f before it was forced readonly. I just checked
>>>>>>> dmesg for inode generation values, and there are a lot of them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://pastebin.com/stZdN0ta
>>>>>>> The dmesg output had 990 lines containing inode generation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, these were at least later. I tried to do a btrfs balance
>>>>>>> -mconvert raid1 and it failed with an I/O error. That is probably what
>>>>>>> generated these specific errors, but maybe they were also happening
>>>>>>> during the btrfs repair.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The FS is ~45TB, but the btrfs-image -c9 failed anway with:
>>>>>>> ERROR: either extent tree is corrupted or deprecated extent ref format
>>>>>>> ERROR: create failed: -5
>>>>
>>>> Oh, forgot this part.
>>>>
>>>> This means you have v0 ref?!
>>>>
>>>> Then the fs is too old, no progs/kernel support after all.
>>>>
>>>> In that case, please rollback to the last working kernel and copy your data.
>>>>
>>>> In fact, that v0 ref should only be in the code base for several weeks
>>>> before 2010, thus it's really too old.
>>>>
>>>> The good news is, with tree-checker, we should never experience such
>>>> too-old-to-be-usable problem (at least I hope so)
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Qu
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 2:07 AM Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2020/8/18 上午11:35, Tyler Richmond wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is that the full output?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No inode generation bugs?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  I'm already on btrfs-progs v5.7. Any new suggestions?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Strange.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The detection and repair should have been merged into v5.5.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If your fs is small enough, would you please provide the "btrfs-image
>>>>>>>> -c9" dump?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It would contain the filenames and directories names, but doesn't
>>>>>>>> contain file contents.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Qu
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 9:52 AM Tyler Richmond <t.d.richmond@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>> <mailto: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
>>>>>>>>>     <mailto: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
>>>>>>>>>     <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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!
>>>>>>>>>     > >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     > >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     > >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>     > >>>>
>>>>>>>>>     > >>
>>>>>>>>>     >
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]