Re: Fwd: Read time tree block corruption detected

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

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 22031 bytes --]



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 --]