From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mondschein.lichtvoll.de ([194.150.191.11]:56777 "EHLO mail.lichtvoll.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751817AbdGINAa (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Jul 2017 09:00:30 -0400 Received: from merkaba.localnet (ppp-93-104-47-0.dynamic.mnet-online.de [93.104.47.0]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.lichtvoll.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F1B52D9005 for ; Sun, 9 Jul 2017 15:00:27 +0200 (CEST) From: Martin Steigerwald To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 4.11.6 / more corruption / root 15455 has a root item with a more recent gen (33682) compared to the found root node (0) Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2017 15:00:27 +0200 Message-ID: <8928893.KSgCgv7lUQ@merkaba> In-Reply-To: References: <20170501170641.GG3516@merlins.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hello Duncan. Duncan - 09.07.17, 11:17: > Paul Jones posted on Sun, 09 Jul 2017 09:16:36 +0000 as excerpted: > >> Marc MERLIN - 08.07.17, 21:34: > >> > This is now the 3rd filesystem I have (on 3 different machines) that > >> > is getting corruption of some kind (on 4.11.6). > >> > >> Anyone else getting corruptions with 4.11? > >> > >> I happily switch back to 4.10.17 or even 4.9 if that is the case. I may > >> even do so just from your reports. Well, yes, I will do exactly that. I > >> just switch back for 4.10 for now. Better be safe, than sorry. > > > > No corruption for me - I've been on 4.11 since about .2 and everything > > seems fine. Currently on 4.11.8 > > No corruptions here either. 4.12.0 now, previously 4.12-rc5(ish, git), > before that 4.11.0. > > I have however just upgraded to new ssds then wiped and setup the old […] > Also, all my btrfs are raid1 or dup for checksummed redundancy, and > relatively small, the largest now 80 GiB per device, after the upgrade. > And my use-case doesn't involve snapshots or subvolumes. > > So any bug that is most likely on older filesystems, say those without > the no-holes feature, for instance, or that doesn't tend to hit raid1 or > dup mode, or that is less likely on small filesystems on fast ssds, or > that triggers most often with reflinks and thus on filesystems with > snapshots, is unlikely to hit me. Hmmm, the BTRFS filesystems on my laptop 3 to 5 or even more years old. I stick with 4.10 for now, I think. The older ones are RAID 1 across two SSDs, the newer one is single device, on one SSD. These filesystems didn´t fail me in years and since 4.5 or 4.6 even the "I search for free space" kernel hang (hung tasks and all that) is gone as well. Thanks, -- Martin