Re: Raid0 rescue

Re: Raid0 rescue

[Alan Brand]

> > Correct, I should have said 'superblock'.
> > It is/was raid0.  Funny thing is that this all happened when I was
> > prepping to convert to raid1.
>    If youre metadata was also RAID-0, then your filesystem is almost
> certainly toast. If any part of the btrfs metadata was overwritten by
> some of the NTFS metadata, then the FS will be broken (somewhere) and
> probably not in a fixable way.


It should have been raid-1 as I believe that is the default for
metadata when creating a btrfs volume
How do i put the good copy back on the corrupt volume?
I cant even look at the metadata on the good disk as it complains
about one of the disk being missing.

> running a btrfs-find-root shows this (which gives me hope)
> Well block 4871870791680(gen: 73257 level: 1) seems good, but
> generation/level doesn't match, want gen: 73258 level: 1
> Well block 4639933562880(gen: 73256 level: 1) seems good, but
> generation/level doesn't match, want gen: 73258 level: 1
> Well block 4639935168512(gen: 73255 level: 1) seems good, but
> generation/level doesn't match, want gen: 73258 level: 1
> Well block 4639926239232(gen: 73242 level: 0) seems good, but
> generation/level doesn't match, want gen: 73258 level: 1
>
> but when I run btrfs
> inspect-internal dump-tree -r /dev/sdc1
>
> checksum verify failed on 874856448 found 5A85B5D9 wanted 17E3CB7D
> checksum verify failed on 874856448 found 5A85B5D9 wanted 17E3CB7D
> checksum verify failed on 874856448 found 2204C752 wanted C6ADDF7E
> checksum verify failed on 874856448 found 2204C752 wanted C6ADDF7E
> bytenr mismatch, want=874856448, have=8568478783891655077

   This would suggest that some fairly important part of the metadata
was damaged. You'll probably spend far less effort recovering the data
by restoring your backups than trying to fix this.

   Hugo.

> root tree: 4871875543040 level 1
> chunk tree: 20971520 level 1
> extent tree key (EXTENT_TREE ROOT_ITEM 0) 4871875559424 level 2
> device tree key (DEV_TREE ROOT_ITEM 0) 4635801976832 level 1
> fs tree key (FS_TREE ROOT_ITEM 0) 4871870414848 level 3
> checksum tree key (CSUM_TREE ROOT_ITEM 0) 4871876034560 level 3
> uuid tree key (UUID_TREE ROOT_ITEM 0) 29376512 level 0
> checksum verify failed on 728891392 found 75E2752C wanted D6CA4FB4
> checksum verify failed on 728891392 found 75E2752C wanted D6CA4FB4
> checksum verify failed on 728891392 found F4F3A4AD wanted E6D063C7
> checksum verify failed on 728891392 found 75E2752C wanted D6CA4FB4
> bytenr mismatch, want=728891392, have=269659807399918462
> total bytes 5000989728768
> bytes used 3400345264128
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Hugo Mills <hugo@carfax.org.uk> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:49:37AM -0400, Alan Brand wrote:
> >> I know I am screwed but hope someone here can point at a possible solution.
> >>
> >> I had a pair of btrfs drives in a raid0 configuration.  One of the
> >> drives was pulled by mistake, put in a windows box, and a quick NTFS
> >> format was done.  Then much screaming occurred.
> >>
> >> I know the data is still there.
> >
> >    Well, except for all the parts overwritten by a blank NTFS metadata
> > structure.
> >
> >>   Is there anyway to rebuild the raid
> >> bringing in the bad disk?  I know some info is still good, for example
> >> metadata0 is corrupt but 1 and 2 are good.
> >
> >    I assume you mean superblock there.
> >
> >> The trees look bad which is probably the killer.
> >
> >    We really should improve the error messages at some point. Whatever
> > you're inferring from the kernel logs is probably not quite right. :)
> >
> >    What's the metadata configuration on this FS? Also RAID-0? or RAID-1?
> >
> >> I can't run a normal recovery as only half of each file is there.
> >
> >    Welcome to RAID-0...
> >
> >    Hugo.
> >

Re: Raid0 rescue

[Chris Murphy]

OK this time, also -mraid1 -draid0, and filled it with some more
metadata this time, but I then formatted NTFS, then ext4, then xfs.
And then wiped those signatures. Brutal, especially ext4 which writes
a lot more stuff and zeros a bunch of areas too.



# btrfs rescue super -v /dev/mapper/vg-2
All Devices:
    Device: id = 1, name = /dev/mapper/vg-1
    Device: id = 2, name = /dev/mapper/vg-2

Before Recovering:
    [All good supers]:
        device name = /dev/mapper/vg-1
        superblock bytenr = 65536

        device name = /dev/mapper/vg-1
        superblock bytenr = 67108864

        device name = /dev/mapper/vg-2
        superblock bytenr = 67108864

    [All bad supers]:

All supers are valid, no need to recover


Obviously vg-2 is missing its first superblock and this tool is not
complaining about it at all. Normal mount does not work (generic open
ctree error).

# btrfs check /dev/mapper/vg-1
warning, device 2 is missing
....

Umm, no. But yeah because the first super is missing the kernel isn't
considering it a Btrfs volume at all. There's also other errors with
the check, due to metadata being stepped on I'm guessing. But we need
a way to fix an obviously stepped on first super, and I don't like the
idea of using btrfs check for that anyway. All I need is the first
copy fixed up, and then just do a normal mount. But let's see how
messy this gets, pointing check to the damaged device and the known
good 2nd super (-s0 is the first super):

# btrfs check -s 1 /dev/mapper/vg-2
using SB copy 1, bytenr 67108864
...skipping checksum errors etc

OK so I guess I have to try --repair.

# btrfs check --repair -s1 /dev/mapper/vg-2
enabling repair mode
using SB copy 1, bytenr 67108864
...skipping checksum errors etc.

]# btrfs rescue super -v /dev/mapper/vg-1
All Devices:
    Device: id = 1, name = /dev/mapper/vg-1

Before Recovering:
    [All good supers]:
        device name = /dev/mapper/vg-1
        superblock bytenr = 67108864

    [All bad supers]:
        device name = /dev/mapper/vg-1
        superblock bytenr = 65536


That is fucked. It broke the previously good super on vg-1?

[root@f26wnuc ~]# btrfs rescue super -v /dev/mapper/vg-2
All Devices:
    Device: id = 1, name = /dev/mapper/vg-1
    Device: id = 2, name = /dev/mapper/vg-2

Before Recovering:
    [All good supers]:
        device name = /dev/mapper/vg-1
        superblock bytenr = 67108864

        device name = /dev/mapper/vg-2
        superblock bytenr = 67108864

    [All bad supers]:
        device name = /dev/mapper/vg-1
        superblock bytenr = 65536


Worse, it did not actually fix the bad/missing superblock on vg-2
either. Let's answer Y to its questions...

[root@f26wnuc ~]# btrfs rescue super -v /dev/mapper/vg-2
All Devices:
    Device: id = 1, name = /dev/mapper/vg-1
    Device: id = 2, name = /dev/mapper/vg-2

Before Recovering:
    [All good supers]:
        device name = /dev/mapper/vg-1
        superblock bytenr = 67108864

        device name = /dev/mapper/vg-2
        superblock bytenr = 67108864

    [All bad supers]:
        device name = /dev/mapper/vg-1
        superblock bytenr = 65536


Make sure this is a btrfs disk otherwise the tool will destroy other
fs, Are you sure? [y/N]: y
checksum verify failed on 20971520 found 348F13AD wanted 00008100
checksum verify failed on 20971520 found 348F13AD wanted 00008100
Recovered bad superblocks successful
[root@f26wnuc ~]# btrfs rescue super -v /dev/mapper/vg-2
All Devices:
    Device: id = 1, name = /dev/mapper/vg-1
    Device: id = 2, name = /dev/mapper/vg-2

Before Recovering:
    [All good supers]:
        device name = /dev/mapper/vg-1
        superblock bytenr = 65536

        device name = /dev/mapper/vg-1
        superblock bytenr = 67108864

        device name = /dev/mapper/vg-2
        superblock bytenr = 65536

        device name = /dev/mapper/vg-2
        superblock bytenr = 67108864

    [All bad supers]:

All supers are valid, no need to recover



OK! That's better! Mount it.

dmesg
https://pastebin.com/6kVzYLfZ

Pretty boring, bad tree block, and then some read errors corrected. I
get more similarly formatted errors, different numbers... but no
failures. Scrub it...

# btrfs scrub status /mnt/yo
scrub status for b2ee5125-cf56-493a-b094-81fe8330115a
    scrub started at Wed Aug 16 23:08:54 2017, running for 00:00:30
    total bytes scrubbed: 1.19GiB with 5 errors
    error details: csum=5
    corrected errors: 5, uncorrectable errors: 0, unverified errors: 0
#

There's almost no data on this file system, it's mostly metadata which
is raid1 so that's why data survives. But even in the previous example
where some data is clobbered, the data loss is limited. The file
system itself survives, and can continue to be used. The 'btrfs rescue
super' function could be better, and it looks like there's a bug in
btrfs check's superblock repair.



Chris Murphy

Re: Raid0 rescue

[Chris Murphy]

I'm testing explicitly for this case:


# lvs
  LV         VG Attr       LSize   Pool       Origin Data%  Meta%
Move Log Cpy%Sync Convert
  1          vg Vwi-a-tz--  10.00g thintastic        0.00
  2          vg Vwi-a-tz--  10.00g thintastic        0.00
  thintastic vg twi-aotz-- 100.00g                   0.00   0.38
# mkfs.btrfs -f -mraid1 -draid0 /dev/mapper/vg-1 /dev/mapper/vg-2

...
mount and copy some variable data to the volume, most files are less
than 64KiB, and even some are less than 2KiB. So there will be a mix
of files that will definitely get nerfed by damaged strips, and many
that will live from the drive not accidentally formatted, as well as
inline. But for sure the file system *ought* to survive.

umount and then format NTFS

# mkfs.ntfs -f /dev/mapper/vg-2

Now get this bit of curiousness:

# wipefs /dev/mapper/vg-2
offset               type
----------------------------------------------------------------
0x1fe                dos   [partition table]

0x10040              btrfs   [filesystem]
                     UUID:  bebaedc5-96a1-4163-9527-8254ecae817e

0x3                  ntfs   [filesystem]
                     UUID:  67AD98CF36096C70


So the two supers can co-exist. That invariably is going to cause
kernel code confusion. blkid will neither consider it NTFS nor Btrfs.
So it's sortof in a zombie situation. Get this:

# btrfs rescue super -v /dev/mapper/vg-1
All Devices:
    Device: id = 1, name = /dev/mapper/vg-1

Before Recovering:
    [All good supers]:
        device name = /dev/mapper/vg-1
        superblock bytenr = 65536

        device name = /dev/mapper/vg-1
        superblock bytenr = 67108864

    [All bad supers]:

All supers are valid, no need to recover

# btrfs rescue super -v /dev/mapper/vg-2
All Devices:
    Device: id = 1, name = /dev/mapper/vg-1
    Device: id = 2, name = /dev/mapper/vg-2

Before Recovering:
    [All good supers]:
        device name = /dev/mapper/vg-1
        superblock bytenr = 65536

        device name = /dev/mapper/vg-1
        superblock bytenr = 67108864

        device name = /dev/mapper/vg-2
        superblock bytenr = 65536

        device name = /dev/mapper/vg-2
        superblock bytenr = 67108864

    [All bad supers]:

All supers are valid, no need to recover
#


So the first command sees the supers only on vg-1, it doesn't go
looking at vg-2 at all presumably because kernel code is ignoring that
device due to two different file system supers (?). But the second
command forces it to look at vg-2, and it says the Btrfs supers are
fine, and then also auto discovers the vg-1 device too.

OK so I'm just going to cheat at this point and wipefs just the NTFS
magic so this device is now seen as Btrfs.

# wipefs -n -o 0x3 /dev/mapper/vg-2
/dev/mapper/vg-2: 8 bytes were erased at offset 0x00000003 (ntfs): 4e
54 46 53 20 20 20 20
# wipefs -o 0x3 /dev/mapper/vg-2
/dev/mapper/vg-2: 8 bytes were erased at offset 0x00000003 (ntfs): 4e
54 46 53 20 20 20 20
# partprobe
# blkid
...
/dev/mapper/vg-1: UUID="bebaedc5-96a1-4163-9527-8254ecae817e"
UUID_SUB="ef9dbcf0-bb0b-4faf-a7b4-02f1c92631e4" TYPE="btrfs"
/dev/mapper/vg-2: UUID="bebaedc5-96a1-4163-9527-8254ecae817e"
UUID_SUB="490504ea-4ee4-47ad-91a7-58b6ccf4be8e" TYPE="btrfs"
PTTYPE="dos"
...

OK good. Except, what is PTTYPE? Ohh, that's the first entry in the
wipefs command way at the top I bet.


[root@f26wnuc ~]# wipefs -o 0x1fe /dev/mapper/vg-2
/dev/mapper/vg-2: 2 bytes were erased at offset 0x000001fe (dos): 55 aa
# blkid
...
/dev/mapper/vg-1: UUID="bebaedc5-96a1-4163-9527-8254ecae817e"
UUID_SUB="ef9dbcf0-bb0b-4faf-a7b4-02f1c92631e4" TYPE="btrfs"
/dev/mapper/vg-2: UUID="bebaedc5-96a1-4163-9527-8254ecae817e"
UUID_SUB="490504ea-4ee4-47ad-91a7-58b6ccf4be8e" TYPE="btrfs"
...

Yep!

OK let's just try a normal mount.

It mounts! No errors at all. list all the files on the file system
(about 700). No errors.

Let's cat a few to /dev/null manually.... no errors. OK I'm bored.
Let's just scrub it.


[root@f26wnuc yo]# btrfs scrub status /mnt/yo/
scrub status for bebaedc5-96a1-4163-9527-8254ecae817e
    scrub started at Wed Aug 16 19:40:26 2017, running for 00:00:10
    total bytes scrubbed: 529.62MiB with 181 errors
    error details: csum=181
    corrected errors: 0, uncorrectable errors: 181, unverified errors: 0

One file is affected, the large ~1+GiB file.

[77898.116429] BTRFS warning (device dm-6): checksum error at logical
1621229568 on dev /dev/mapper/vg-2, sector 2621568, root 5, inode 257,
offset 517341184, length 4096, links 1 (path:
Fedora-Workstation-Live-x86_64-Rawhide-20170814.n.0.iso)
[77898.116463] BTRFS error (device dm-6): bdev /dev/mapper/vg-2 errs:
wr 0, rd 0, flush 0, corrupt 1, gen 0
[77898.116478] BTRFS error (device dm-6): unable to fixup (regular)
error at logical 1621229568 on dev /dev/mapper/vg-2

There's about 9 more of those kinds of messages. Anyway that looks to
me like that file itself is nerfed by the NTFS format, but the file
system itself wasn't hit. There's no fixups which would happen if
metadata on vg-2 were overwritten.


I'm gonna take a guess. I *think* originally because the NTFS
signature was there, therefore a normal mount won't work which might
compel the user to try an -o degraded mount which doesn't really help
because that means for sure 1/2 the data strips are lost. I think the
trick here is to make sure both the dos/mbr signature and ntfs
signatures are wiped first. Confirme the supers on both devices are
still OK and if not fix them with 'btrfs rescue super' and then just
mount normally, and start copying files off.


-------
Chris Murphy

Re: Raid0 rescue

[Chris Murphy]

On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 12:36 PM, Alan Brand <alan@georgiabrands.com> wrote:
> I successfully repaired the superblock, copied it from one of the backups.
> My biggest problem now is that the UUID for the disk has changed due
> to the reformatting and no longer matches what is in the metadata.
> I need to make linux recognize the partition as btrfs and have the correct UUID.
> Any suggestions?

Huh, insofar as I'm aware, Btrfs does not track a "disk" UUID or partition UUID.

A better qualified set of steps for fixing this would be:

a.) restore partitioning, if any
b.) wipefs the NTFS signature to invalidate the NTFS file system
c.) use super-recover to replace correct supers on both drives
d.) mount the file system
e.) do a full scrub

The last step is optional but best practice. It'll actively do fixups,
and you'll get an error message with path to files that are not
recoverable.

Alternatively a metadata only balance will do fixups, and it'll be
much faster. But you won't get info right away about what files are
damaged.


-- 
Chris Murphy

Re: Raid0 rescue

[Chris Murphy]

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 8:49 AM, Alan Brand <alan@georgiabrands.com> wrote:
> I know I am screwed but hope someone here can point at a possible solution.
>
> I had a pair of btrfs drives in a raid0 configuration.  One of the
> drives was pulled by mistake, put in a windows box, and a quick NTFS
> format was done.  Then much screaming occurred.
>
> I know the data is still there.  Is there anyway to rebuild the raid
> bringing in the bad disk?  I know some info is still good, for example
> metadata0 is corrupt but 1 and 2 are good.
> The trees look bad which is probably the killer.

Well the first step is to check and fix the super blocks. And then the
normal code should just discover the bad stuff, and get good copies
from the good drive, and copy them to the corrupt one, passively, and
eventually fix the file system itself. There's probably only a few
files corrupted irrecoverably.

It's probably worth testing for this explicitly. It's not a wild
scenario, and it's something Btrfs should be able to recover from
gracefully. The gotcha part of a totally automatic recovery is the
superblocks because there's no *one true right way* for the kernel to
just assume the remaining Btrfs supers are more valid than the NTFS
supers.

So then the question is, which tool should fix this up? I'd say both
'btrfs rescue super-recover' and 'btrfs check' should do this. The
difference being super-recover would fix only the supers, with kernel
code doing passive fixups as problems are encountered once the fs is
mounted. And 'check --repair' would fix supers and additionally fix
missing metadata on the corrupt drive, using user space code with an
unmounted system.

Both should work, or at least both should be fail safe.

-- 
Chris Murphy

Re: Raid0 rescue

[Adam Borowski]

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 08:25:19PM +0000, Duncan wrote:
> >    Welcome to RAID-0...
> 
> As Hugo implies, RAID-0 mode, not just for btrfs but in general, is well 
> known among admins for being "garbage data not worth trying to recover" 
> mode.  Not only is there no redundancy, but with raid0 you're 
> deliberately increasing the chances of loss because now loss of any one 
> device pretty well makes garbage of the entire array, and loss of any 
> single device in a group of more than one is more likely than loss of any 
> single device by itself.

Disks don't quite die once a week, you see.  Using raid0 is actually quite
rational in a good part of setups.

* You need backups _anyway_.  No raid level removes this requirement.
* You can give a machine twice as much immediate storage with raid0 than
  with raid1.
* You get twice as many disks you can use for backup.

Redundant raid is good for two things:
* uptime
* reducing the chance for loss of data between last backup and the failure

For the second point, do you happen to know of a filesystem that gives you
cheap hourly backups that avoid taking half an hour just to stat?


Thus, you need to make a decision: would you prefer to take time trying to
recover, with a good chance of failure anyway -- or a-priori accept that
every failure means hitting the backups?  Obviously, depends on the use
case.

This said, I don't have a raid0 anywhere.


Meow!
-- 
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ What Would Jesus Do, MUD/MMORPG edition:
⣾⠁⢰⠒⠀⣿⡁ • multiplay with an admin char to benefit your mortal
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ • abuse item cloning bugs (the five fishes + two breads affair)
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ • use glitches to walk on water

Re: Raid0 rescue

[Duncan]

Hugo Mills posted on Thu, 27 Jul 2017 15:10:38 +0000 as excerpted:

> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:49:37AM -0400, Alan Brand wrote:
>> I know I am screwed but hope someone here can point at a possible
>> solution.
>> 
>> I had a pair of btrfs drives in a raid0 configuration.  One of the
>> drives was pulled by mistake, put in a windows box, and a quick NTFS
>> format was done.  Then much screaming occurred.
>> 
>> I know the data is still there. [...]

>> I can't run a normal recovery as only half of each file is there.
> 
>    Welcome to RAID-0...

Hugo, Chris Murphy, or one of the devs should they take an interest, are 
your best bets for current recovery.  This reply only tries to fill in 
some recommendations for an eventual rebuild.

As Hugo implies, RAID-0 mode, not just for btrfs but in general, is well 
known among admins for being "garbage data not worth trying to recover" 
mode.  Not only is there no redundancy, but with raid0 you're 
deliberately increasing the chances of loss because now loss of any one 
device pretty well makes garbage of the entire array, and loss of any 
single device in a group of more than one is more likely than loss of any 
single device by itself.

So first rule of raid0, don't use it unless the data you're putting on it 
is indeed not worth trying to rebuild, either because you keep the 
backups updated and it's easier to just go back to them than to even try 
recovery of the raid0, or because the data really is garbage data, 
internet cache, temp files, etc, that it's really just better to scrap 
and let the cache rebuild, etc, than try to recover.

That's in general.  For btrfs in particular, there's some additional 
considerations altho they don't change the above.  If the data isn't 
quite down to the raid0-garbage, just-give-up-and-start-over, level, with 
btrfs, what you likely want is metadata raid1, data single, mode, which 
is the btrfs multi-device default.

The raid1 metadata mode will mean there's two copies of metadata, one on 
each of two different devices, so it'll tolerate loss of a single device 
and still let you at least know where the files are located and give you 
a chance at recovery.  But since metadata is typically a small fraction 
of the total, you'll not be sacrificing /too/ much space for that 
additional safety.

The single data mode will normally put files (under a gig filesize 
anyway, tho as the size increases toward a gig the chances of it all 
being on a single device go down) all on one device, so with a loss of a 
device, you'll either still have the file or you won't.  The contrast 
with raid0 mode is that its line is 64k instead of a gig, above which the 
file will be striped across multiple devices, so indeed, with a two-
device raid0, half of each file, in alternating 64k pieces, is what you 
have left if one of the devices goes bad, while with single, your chances 
of whole-file recovery, assuming it wasn't /entirely/ on the bad device, 
are pretty good upto a gig or so.

And because btrfs is still in the stabilizing, "get-the-code-correct-
before-you-worry-about-optimizing-it" mode, unlike more mature raid 
implementations such as the kernel's mdraid, btrfs still normally 
accesses only one device at a time, so btrfs raid0 only gets you the 
space advantage, not the usual raid0 speed advantage.  So btrfs single 
mode isn't really much if any slower than raid0, while being much safer 
and offering the same (or even better in the case of differing device 
sizes) size advantage as raid0.

Put differently, there's really very little case for choosing btrfs raid0 
mode at this time.  Maybe some years in the future when raid0 mode is 
speed-optimized that will change, but for now, single mode is safer and 
in the case of unequal device sizes makes better use of space, while 
being generally as fast, as raid0 mode, so single mode is almost 
certainly a better choice.

Meanwhile, back to the general case again:  Admin's first rule of 
backups:  The *true* value you place on your your data is defined not by 
arbitrary claims, but by the number of backups of that data you have.  No 
backups, much like putting the data on raid0, defines that data as of 
garbage value, not worth the trouble to try to recover in the case of 
raid0, not worth the trouble of making the backup in the first place in 
the case of no backup.  Of course really valuable data will have multiple 
backups, generally some of which are off-site in case the entire site is 
lost (flood, fire, earthquake, bomb, etc), while others are on-site in 
ordered to facilitate easy recovery from a less major disaster, should it 
be necessary.

Which means, regardless of whether files are lost or not, what was of 
most value as defined by an admin's actions (or lack of them in the case 
of not having a backup) is always saved, either the time/resources/
trouble to make the backup in the first place if the data wasn't worth 
it, or the data, if the backup was made and is thus available for 
recovery purposes.

So if you lost the data and didn't have a backup, particularly if it was 
on a raid0 which declares at least that instance of the data to be not 
really worth the trouble of an attempt at recovery anyway, at least you 
can be glad you saved what your actions defined as most important, the 
time/resources/trouble to make that backup that you didn't have, because 
the value of the data wasn't worth having a backup. =:^)

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

Re: Raid0 rescue

[Hugo Mills]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3741 bytes --]

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 03:43:37PM -0400, Alan Brand wrote:
> Correct, I should have said 'superblock'.
> It is/was raid0.  Funny thing is that this all happened when I was
> prepping to convert to raid1.

   If youre metadata was also RAID-0, then your filesystem is almost
certainly toast. If any part of the btrfs metadata was overwritten by
some of the NTFS metadata, then the FS will be broken (somewhere) and
probably not in a fixable way.

> running a btrfs-find-root shows this (which gives me hope)
> Well block 4871870791680(gen: 73257 level: 1) seems good, but
> generation/level doesn't match, want gen: 73258 level: 1
> Well block 4639933562880(gen: 73256 level: 1) seems good, but
> generation/level doesn't match, want gen: 73258 level: 1
> Well block 4639935168512(gen: 73255 level: 1) seems good, but
> generation/level doesn't match, want gen: 73258 level: 1
> Well block 4639926239232(gen: 73242 level: 0) seems good, but
> generation/level doesn't match, want gen: 73258 level: 1
> 
> but when I run btrfs
> inspect-internal dump-tree -r /dev/sdc1
> 
> checksum verify failed on 874856448 found 5A85B5D9 wanted 17E3CB7D
> checksum verify failed on 874856448 found 5A85B5D9 wanted 17E3CB7D
> checksum verify failed on 874856448 found 2204C752 wanted C6ADDF7E
> checksum verify failed on 874856448 found 2204C752 wanted C6ADDF7E
> bytenr mismatch, want=874856448, have=8568478783891655077

   This would suggest that some fairly important part of the metadata
was damaged. You'll probably spend far less effort recovering the data
by restoring your backups than trying to fix this.

   Hugo.

> root tree: 4871875543040 level 1
> chunk tree: 20971520 level 1
> extent tree key (EXTENT_TREE ROOT_ITEM 0) 4871875559424 level 2
> device tree key (DEV_TREE ROOT_ITEM 0) 4635801976832 level 1
> fs tree key (FS_TREE ROOT_ITEM 0) 4871870414848 level 3
> checksum tree key (CSUM_TREE ROOT_ITEM 0) 4871876034560 level 3
> uuid tree key (UUID_TREE ROOT_ITEM 0) 29376512 level 0
> checksum verify failed on 728891392 found 75E2752C wanted D6CA4FB4
> checksum verify failed on 728891392 found 75E2752C wanted D6CA4FB4
> checksum verify failed on 728891392 found F4F3A4AD wanted E6D063C7
> checksum verify failed on 728891392 found 75E2752C wanted D6CA4FB4
> bytenr mismatch, want=728891392, have=269659807399918462
> total bytes 5000989728768
> bytes used 3400345264128
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Hugo Mills <hugo@carfax.org.uk> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:49:37AM -0400, Alan Brand wrote:
> >> I know I am screwed but hope someone here can point at a possible solution.
> >>
> >> I had a pair of btrfs drives in a raid0 configuration.  One of the
> >> drives was pulled by mistake, put in a windows box, and a quick NTFS
> >> format was done.  Then much screaming occurred.
> >>
> >> I know the data is still there.
> >
> >    Well, except for all the parts overwritten by a blank NTFS metadata
> > structure.
> >
> >>   Is there anyway to rebuild the raid
> >> bringing in the bad disk?  I know some info is still good, for example
> >> metadata0 is corrupt but 1 and 2 are good.
> >
> >    I assume you mean superblock there.
> >
> >> The trees look bad which is probably the killer.
> >
> >    We really should improve the error messages at some point. Whatever
> > you're inferring from the kernel logs is probably not quite right. :)
> >
> >    What's the metadata configuration on this FS? Also RAID-0? or RAID-1?
> >
> >> I can't run a normal recovery as only half of each file is there.
> >
> >    Welcome to RAID-0...
> >
> >    Hugo.
> >

-- 
Hugo Mills             | Great oxymorons of the world, no. 1:
hugo@... carfax.org.uk | Family Holiday
http://carfax.org.uk/  |
PGP: E2AB1DE4          |

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: Raid0 rescue

[Alan Brand]

Correct, I should have said 'superblock'.
It is/was raid0.  Funny thing is that this all happened when I was
prepping to convert to raid1.

running a btrfs-find-root shows this (which gives me hope)
Well block 4871870791680(gen: 73257 level: 1) seems good, but
generation/level doesn't match, want gen: 73258 level: 1
Well block 4639933562880(gen: 73256 level: 1) seems good, but
generation/level doesn't match, want gen: 73258 level: 1
Well block 4639935168512(gen: 73255 level: 1) seems good, but
generation/level doesn't match, want gen: 73258 level: 1
Well block 4639926239232(gen: 73242 level: 0) seems good, but
generation/level doesn't match, want gen: 73258 level: 1

but when I run btrfs
inspect-internal dump-tree -r /dev/sdc1

checksum verify failed on 874856448 found 5A85B5D9 wanted 17E3CB7D
checksum verify failed on 874856448 found 5A85B5D9 wanted 17E3CB7D
checksum verify failed on 874856448 found 2204C752 wanted C6ADDF7E
checksum verify failed on 874856448 found 2204C752 wanted C6ADDF7E
bytenr mismatch, want=874856448, have=8568478783891655077
root tree: 4871875543040 level 1
chunk tree: 20971520 level 1
extent tree key (EXTENT_TREE ROOT_ITEM 0) 4871875559424 level 2
device tree key (DEV_TREE ROOT_ITEM 0) 4635801976832 level 1
fs tree key (FS_TREE ROOT_ITEM 0) 4871870414848 level 3
checksum tree key (CSUM_TREE ROOT_ITEM 0) 4871876034560 level 3
uuid tree key (UUID_TREE ROOT_ITEM 0) 29376512 level 0
checksum verify failed on 728891392 found 75E2752C wanted D6CA4FB4
checksum verify failed on 728891392 found 75E2752C wanted D6CA4FB4
checksum verify failed on 728891392 found F4F3A4AD wanted E6D063C7
checksum verify failed on 728891392 found 75E2752C wanted D6CA4FB4
bytenr mismatch, want=728891392, have=269659807399918462
total bytes 5000989728768
bytes used 3400345264128



On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Hugo Mills <hugo@carfax.org.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:49:37AM -0400, Alan Brand wrote:
>> I know I am screwed but hope someone here can point at a possible solution.
>>
>> I had a pair of btrfs drives in a raid0 configuration.  One of the
>> drives was pulled by mistake, put in a windows box, and a quick NTFS
>> format was done.  Then much screaming occurred.
>>
>> I know the data is still there.
>
>    Well, except for all the parts overwritten by a blank NTFS metadata
> structure.
>
>>   Is there anyway to rebuild the raid
>> bringing in the bad disk?  I know some info is still good, for example
>> metadata0 is corrupt but 1 and 2 are good.
>
>    I assume you mean superblock there.
>
>> The trees look bad which is probably the killer.
>
>    We really should improve the error messages at some point. Whatever
> you're inferring from the kernel logs is probably not quite right. :)
>
>    What's the metadata configuration on this FS? Also RAID-0? or RAID-1?
>
>> I can't run a normal recovery as only half of each file is there.
>
>    Welcome to RAID-0...
>
>    Hugo.
>
> --
> Hugo Mills             | We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has
> hugo@... carfax.org.uk | pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them
> http://carfax.org.uk/  | unconscious and rifle their pockets for new
> PGP: E2AB1DE4          | vocabulary.                           James D. Nicoll

Re: Raid0 rescue

[Hugo Mills]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1330 bytes --]

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:49:37AM -0400, Alan Brand wrote:
> I know I am screwed but hope someone here can point at a possible solution.
> 
> I had a pair of btrfs drives in a raid0 configuration.  One of the
> drives was pulled by mistake, put in a windows box, and a quick NTFS
> format was done.  Then much screaming occurred.
> 
> I know the data is still there.

   Well, except for all the parts overwritten by a blank NTFS metadata
structure.

>   Is there anyway to rebuild the raid
> bringing in the bad disk?  I know some info is still good, for example
> metadata0 is corrupt but 1 and 2 are good.

   I assume you mean superblock there.

> The trees look bad which is probably the killer.

   We really should improve the error messages at some point. Whatever
you're inferring from the kernel logs is probably not quite right. :)

   What's the metadata configuration on this FS? Also RAID-0? or RAID-1?

> I can't run a normal recovery as only half of each file is there.

   Welcome to RAID-0...

   Hugo.

-- 
Hugo Mills             | We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has
hugo@... carfax.org.uk | pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them
http://carfax.org.uk/  | unconscious and rifle their pockets for new
PGP: E2AB1DE4          | vocabulary.                           James D. Nicoll

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Raid0 rescue

[Alan Brand]

I know I am screwed but hope someone here can point at a possible solution.

I had a pair of btrfs drives in a raid0 configuration.  One of the
drives was pulled by mistake, put in a windows box, and a quick NTFS
format was done.  Then much screaming occurred.

I know the data is still there.  Is there anyway to rebuild the raid
bringing in the bad disk?  I know some info is still good, for example
metadata0 is corrupt but 1 and 2 are good.
The trees look bad which is probably the killer.

I can't run a normal recovery as only half of each file is there.

$100 reward if you come up with a workable solution.