Re: Fwd: Read time tree block corruption detected

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

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 49574 bytes --]



On 2020/11/6 下午6:09, Ferry Toth wrote:
> Hi Qu
> 
> Op 06-11-2020 om 00:40 schreef Qu Wenruo:
>>
>> On 2020/11/6 上午7:37, Ferry Toth wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> Op 06-11-2020 om 00:32 schreef Qu Wenruo:
>>>> On 2020/11/6 上午7:12, Ferry Toth wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Op 06-11-2020 om 00:00 schreef Qu Wenruo:
>>>>>> On 2020/11/6 上午4:08, Ferry Toth wrote:
>>>>>>> I am in a similar spot, during updating my distro (Kubuntu), I am
>>>>>>> unable
>>>>>>> to update a certain package. I know which file it is:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ~$ ls -l /usr/share/doc/libatk1.0-data
>>>>>>> ls: kan geen toegang krijgen tot '/usr/share/doc/libatk1.0-data':
>>>>>>> Invoer-/uitvoerfout
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This creates the following in journal:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> kernel: BTRFS critical (device sda2): corrupt leaf: root=294
>>>>>>> block=1169152675840 slot=1 ino=915987, invalid inode generation: has
>>>>>>> 18446744073709551492 expect [0, 5851353]
>>>>>>> kernel: BTRFS error (device sda2): block=1169152675840 read time
>>>>>>> tree
>>>>>>> block corruption detected
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now, the problem: this file is on my rootfs, which is mounted. apt
>>>>>>> (distribution updated) installed all packages but can't continue
>>>>>>> configuring, because libatk is a dependancy. I can't delete the file
>>>>>>> because of the I/O error. And btrfs check complains (I tried
>>>>>>> running RO)
>>>>>>> because the file system is mounted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But, on the sunny side, the file system is not RO.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is there any way to forcefully remove the file? Or do you have a
>>>>>>> recommendation how to proceed?
>>>>>> Newer kernel will reject to even read the item, thus will not be
>>>>>> able to
>>>>>> remove it.
>>>>> That's already the case. (input / output error)
>>>>>> I guess you have to use some distro ISO to fix the fs.
>>>>> And then? btrfs check --repair the disk offline?
>>>> Yep.
>>>>
>>>> You would want the latest btrfs-progs though.
>>> Groovy has 5.7. Would that be good enough? Otherwise will be difficult
>>> to build on/for live usb image.
>> For your particular case, the fix are already in btrfs-progs v5.4.
>>
>> Although newer is always better, just in case you have extent item
>> generation corruption, you may want v5.4.1.
>>
>> So your v5.7 should be good enough.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Qu
> 
> I made a live usb and performed:
> 
> btrfs check --repair /dev/sda2
> 
> It found errors and fixed them. However, it did not fix the corrupt
> leaf. The file is actually a directory:
> 
> ~$ stat /usr/share/doc/libatk1.0-data
> stat: cannot statx '/usr/share/doc/libatk1.0-data': Invoer-/uitvoerfout
> 
> in journal:
> 
> BTRFS critical (device sda2): corrupt leaf: root=294 block=1169152675840
> slot=1 ino=915987, invalid inode generation: has 18446744073709551492
> expect [0, 5852829]
> BTRFS error (device sda2): block=1169152675840 read time tree block
> corruption detected
> 
> So how do I repair this? Am I doing something wrong?

Please provide the following dump:
btrfs ins dump-tree -b 1169152675840 /dev/sda2

Feel free to remove the filenames in the dump.

And 'btrfs check /dev/sda2' output after the repair.

As a workaround, you can use older kernel (v5.2 at most) to temporary
ignore the problem.

Thanks,
Qu

> 
>>>> THanks,
>>>> Qu
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Qu
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Linux = 5.6.0-1032-oem
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Ferry
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Op 05-11-2020 om 08:19 schreef Qu Wenruo:
>>>>>>>> On 2020/11/5 下午3:01, Tyler Richmond wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Qu,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm wondering, was a fix for this ever implemented?
>>>>>>>> Already implemented the --repair ability in latest btrfs-progs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I recently added a
>>>>>>>>> new drive to expand the array, and during the rebalance it dropped
>>>>>>>>> itself back to a read only filesystem. I suspect it's related
>>>>>>>>> to the
>>>>>>>>> issues discussed earlier in this thread. Is there anything I can
>>>>>>>>> do to
>>>>>>>>> complete the balance? The error that caused it to drop to read
>>>>>>>>> only is
>>>>>>>>> here: https://pastebin.com/GGYVMaiG
>>>>>>>> Yep, the same cause.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Qu
>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 9:43 AM Tyler Richmond
>>>>>>>>> <t.d.richmond@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Great, glad we got somewhere! I'll look forward to the fix!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 9:38 AM Qu Wenruo
>>>>>>>>>> <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2020/8/25 下午9:30, Tyler Richmond wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Qu,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The dump of the block is:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://pastebin.com/ran85JJv
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I've also completed the btrfs-image, but it's almost 50gb.
>>>>>>>>>>>> What's the
>>>>>>>>>>>> best way to get it to you? Also, does it work with -ss or
>>>>>>>>>>>> are the
>>>>>>>>>>>> original filenames important?
>>>>>>>>>>> 50G is too big for me to even receive.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But your dump shows the problem!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's not inode generation, but inode transid, which would affect
>>>>>>>>>>> send.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is not even checked in btrfs-progs, thus no wonder why it
>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>> detect them.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And copy-pasted kernel message shares the same "generation"
>>>>>>>>>>> word,
>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>> using proper transid to show the problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Your dump really saved the day!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The fix for kernel and btrfs-progs would come in next few days.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>> Qu
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks again!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 2:37 AM Qu Wenruo
>>>>>>>>>>>> <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2020/8/25 下午1:25, Tyler Richmond wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Qu,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it's btrfs-progs 5.7. Here is the result of the lowmem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> check:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://pastebin.com/8Tzx23EX
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That doesn't detect any inode generation problem at all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> good sign.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would you also pvode the dump for the offending block?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> block=203510940835840 slot=4 ino=1311670, invalid inode
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generation:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> has 18446744073709551492 expect [0, 6875827]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> For this case, would you please provide the tree dump of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "203510940835840" ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> # btrfs ins dump-tree -b 203510940835840 <device>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And, since btrfs-image can't dump with regular extent tree,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "-w"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dump would also help.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Qu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 4:26 AM Qu Wenruo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 --]