From: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com>
To: Tyler Richmond <t.d.richmond@gmail.com>
Cc: Btrfs BTRFS <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Read time tree block corruption detected
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 16:26:20 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5346c4af-c73e-84b3-ec4f-8f169c0a732a@gmx.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJheHN1+AQR-irSbaH8f7HGj=rDN4+uUCyqjvtezGewQkQoDpg@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 23569 bytes --]
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 --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-08-24 8:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 56+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <CAJheHN0FUe-ijMco1ZOc6iKF2zbPocOw+iiVNeTT1r-JuXOJww@mail.gmail.com>
2020-05-06 21:54 ` Fwd: Read time tree block corruption detected Tyler Richmond
2020-05-06 23:55 ` Chris Murphy
2020-05-07 0:51 ` Tyler Richmond
2020-05-07 1:06 ` Chris Murphy
2020-05-07 1:13 ` Fwd: " Qu Wenruo
2020-05-07 1:30 ` Tyler Richmond
2020-05-07 5:43 ` Tyler Richmond
2020-05-07 5:52 ` Qu Wenruo
2020-05-07 15:52 ` Tyler Richmond
2020-05-08 0:11 ` Qu Wenruo
2020-05-08 4:23 ` Tyler Richmond
2020-05-08 5:07 ` Qu Wenruo
2020-05-08 5:12 ` Tyler Richmond
2020-05-08 5:47 ` Qu Wenruo
2020-05-08 13:52 ` Tyler Richmond
2020-08-18 3:36 ` Tyler Richmond
[not found] ` <CAJheHN3qwDAGY=z14zfO4LBrxNJZZ_rvAMsWLwe-k+4+t3zLog@mail.gmail.com>
2020-08-18 6:07 ` Qu Wenruo
2020-08-18 12:18 ` Tyler Richmond
2020-08-23 1:15 ` Tyler Richmond
2020-08-23 1:51 ` Qu Wenruo
2020-08-23 2:31 ` Qu Wenruo
2020-08-23 2:49 ` Tyler Richmond
2020-08-23 4:28 ` Qu Wenruo
2020-08-24 2:47 ` Tyler Richmond
2020-08-24 8:26 ` Qu Wenruo [this message]
2020-08-25 5:25 ` Tyler Richmond
2020-08-25 6:37 ` Qu Wenruo
2020-08-25 13:30 ` Tyler Richmond
2020-08-25 13:38 ` Qu Wenruo
2020-08-25 13:43 ` Tyler Richmond
2020-11-05 7:01 ` Tyler Richmond
2020-11-05 7:19 ` Qu Wenruo
2020-11-05 20:08 ` Ferry Toth
2020-11-05 23:00 ` Qu Wenruo
2020-11-05 23:12 ` Ferry Toth
2020-11-05 23:32 ` Qu Wenruo
2020-11-05 23:37 ` Ferry Toth
2020-11-05 23:40 ` Qu Wenruo
2020-11-06 10:09 ` Ferry Toth
2020-11-06 10:24 ` Qu Wenruo
2020-11-06 10:27 ` Qu Wenruo
2020-11-06 10:32 ` Ferry Toth
2020-11-06 10:30 ` Ferry Toth
2020-11-06 10:32 ` Qu Wenruo
2020-11-07 11:18 ` Ferry Toth
2020-11-07 11:35 ` Qu Wenruo
2020-11-07 13:19 ` Ferry Toth
2020-11-07 13:28 ` Qu Wenruo
2020-11-07 19:50 ` Ferry Toth
2020-11-07 19:50 ` Ferry Toth
2020-11-16 10:41 ` Ferry Toth
2020-11-16 10:52 ` Andrei Borzenkov
2020-11-16 10:57 ` Ferry Toth
2020-11-16 16:35 ` Tyler Richmond
2020-11-06 11:28 ` Ferry Toth
2020-08-23 2:32 ` Tyler Richmond
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5346c4af-c73e-84b3-ec4f-8f169c0a732a@gmx.com \
--to=quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=t.d.richmond@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).