From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sean Bartell Subject: Re: Is there a more aggressive fixer than btrfsck? Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 11:56:46 -0400 Message-ID: <20100602155646.GA4041@flcl.lan> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org To: ulmo@sonic.net Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-ID: On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 07:29:56PM -0700, ulmo@sonic.net wrote: > Is there a more aggressive filesystem restorer than btrfsck? It simply > gives up immediately with the following error: > > btrfsck: disk-io.c:739: open_ctree_fd: Assertion `!(!tree_root->node)' > failed. btrfsck currently only checks whether a filesystem is consistent. It doesn't try to perform any recovery or error correction at all, so it's mostly useful to developers. Any error handling occurs while the filesystem is mounted. > Yet, the filesystem has plenty of data on it, and the discs are good and I > didn't do anything to the data except regular btrfs commands and normal > mounting. That's a wildly unreliable filesystem. btrfs is under heavy development, so make sure you're using the latest git versions of the kernel module and tools. > BTW, is there a way to improve delete and copy performance of btrfs? I'm > getting about 50KB/s-500KB/s (per size of file being deleted) in deleting > and/or copying files on a disc that usually can go about 80MB/s. I think > it's because they were fragmented. That implies btrfs is too accepting of > writing data in fragmented style when it doesn't have to. Almost all the > files on my btrfs partitions are around a gig, or 20 gigs, or a third of a > gig, or stuff like that. The filesystem is 1.1TB. > > Brad