Re: Fwd: Read time tree block corruption detected

[Tyler Richmond <t.d.richmond@gmail.com>]

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?

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!
> >>>>>>>>>>>     > >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>     > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>     > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>     > >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>     > >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>     >
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
>