On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Ryan C. Underwood <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > Unfortunately, I am going to have to give up on btrfs if it >> > is really so fragile. >> >> However, complaining about the fragility of a still in development >> and >> marked experimental filesystem would seem disingenuous at best. > [snip paragraphs of tut-tutting] >> IOW, yes, btrfs is to be considered fragile at this point. > > So you re-stated my position. I gave btrfs a chance but it is still > apparently far more fragile than ext4 when corruption is introduced -- > although btrfs is the filesystem of the two which is specifically > designed to provide internal fault tolerance and resilience. Is there > a fine line between "user feedback" and "disingenuous complaining" > that I am not aware of? > > The data in question is not that important, though I would like to > have it back considering it should mostly still be there as on the > ext4 volumes. 40MB of bad sectors on one 2TB disk in a 6TB volume > does not seem like a lot. Even if the whole beginning of the volume > was wiped out surely there is the equivalent of backup superblocks? I > can hack if I could just get a clue where to start. >
Since you're getting "failed to read /dev/sr0" messages, that might be an indication there are some newer btrfs-progs tools available. You might want to try the building btrfs-progs from the git repository: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/mason/btrfs-progs.git;a=summary There are some recovery tools there that may extract your data (look at the "recover" program). -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
