On 04/03/2016 12:29 AM, Ivan P wrote:
It's about 800Mb, I think I could upload that.

I ran it with the -s parameter, is that enough to remove all personal
info from the image?
Also, I had to run it with -w because otherwise it died on the same
corrupt node.

You can also use -c9 to further compress the data.

Thanks,
Qu

On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Qu Wenruo <quwen...@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:


Ivan P wrote on 2016/03/31 18:04 +0200:

Ok, it will take a while until I can attempt repairing it, since I
will have to order a spare HDD to copy the data to.
Should I take some sort of debug snapshot of the fs so you can take a
look at it? I think I read something about a snapshot that only
contains the fs but not the data that somewhere.

That's btrfs-image.

It would be good, but if your metadata is over 3G, I think it's would take a
lot of time uploading.

Thanks,
Qu


Regards,
Ivan.

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 3:57 AM, Qu Wenruo <quwen...@cn.fujitsu.com>
wrote:



Ivan P wrote on 2016/03/28 23:21 +0200:


Well, the file in this inode is fine, I was able to copy it off the
disk. However, rm-ing the file causes a segmentation fault. Shortly
after that, I get a kernel oops. Same thing happens if I attempt to
re-run scrub.

How can I delete that inode? Could deleting it destroy the filesystem
beyond repair?



The kernel oops should protect you from completely destroying the fs.

However it seems that the problem is beyond kernel's handle (kernel
oops).

So no safe recovery method now.

  From now on, any repair advice from me *MAY* *destroy* your fs.
So please do backup when you still can.


The best possible try would be "btrfsck --init-extent-tree --repair".

If it works, then mount it and run "btrfs balance start <mnt>".
Lastly, umount and use btrfsck to re-check if it fixes the problem.

Thanks,
Qu



Regards,
Ivan

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 3:10 AM, Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.bt...@gmx.com>
wrote:




Ivan P wrote on 2016/03/27 16:31 +0200:



Thanks for the reply,

the raid1 array was created from scratch, so not converted from ext*.
I used btrfs-progs version 4.2.3 on kernel 4.2.5 to create the array,
btw.




I don't remember any strange behavior after 4.0, so no clue here.

Go to the subvolume 5 (the top-level subvolume), find inode 71723 and
try
to
remove it.
Then, use 'btrfs filesystem sync <mount point>' to sync the inode
removal.

Finally use latest btrfs-progs to check if the problem disappears.

This problem seems to be quite strange, so I can't locate the root
cause,
but try to remove the file and hopes kernel can handle it.

Thanks,
Qu




Is there a way to fix the current situation without taking the whole
data off the disk?
I'm not familiar with file systems terms, so what exactly could I have
lost, if anything?

Regards,
Ivan

On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.bt...@gmx.com
<mailto:quwenruo.bt...@gmx.com>> wrote:



       On 03/27/2016 05:54 PM, Ivan P wrote:

           Read the info on the wiki, here's the rest of the requested
           information:

           # uname -r
           4.4.5-1-ARCH

           # btrfs fi show
           Label: 'ArchVault'  uuid:
cd8a92b6-c5b5-4b19-b5e6-a839828d12d8
                    Total devices 1 FS bytes used 2.10GiB
                    devid    1 size 14.92GiB used 4.02GiB path
/dev/sdc1

           Label: 'Vault'  uuid: 013cda95-8aab-4cb2-acdd-2f0f78036e02
                    Total devices 2 FS bytes used 800.72GiB
                    devid    1 size 931.51GiB used 808.01GiB path
/dev/sda
                    devid    2 size 931.51GiB used 808.01GiB path
/dev/sdb

           # btrfs fi df /mnt/vault/
           Data, RAID1: total=806.00GiB, used=799.81GiB
           System, RAID1: total=8.00MiB, used=128.00KiB
           Metadata, RAID1: total=2.00GiB, used=936.20MiB
           GlobalReserve, single: total=320.00MiB, used=0.00B

           On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Ivan P
<chrnosphe...@gmail.com
           <mailto:chrnosphe...@gmail.com>> wrote:

               Hello,

               using kernel  4.4.5 and btrfs-progs 4.4.1, I today ran a
               scrub on my
               2x1Tb btrfs raid1 array and it finished with 36
               unrecoverable errors
               [1], all blaming the treeblock 741942071296. Running
"btrfs
               check
               --readonly" on one of the devices lists that extent as
               corrupted [2].

               How can I recover, how much did I really lose, and how
can
I
               prevent
               it from happening again?
               If you need me to provide more info, do tell.

               [1] http://cwillu.com:8080/188.110.141.36/1


       This message itself is normal, it just means a tree block is
       crossing 64K stripe boundary.
       And due to scrub limit, it can check if it's good or bad.
       But....

               [2] http://pastebin.com/xA5zezqw

       This one is much more meaningful, showing several strange bugs.

       1. corrupt extent record: key 741942071296 168 1114112
       This means, this is a EXTENT_ITEM(168), and according to the
offset,
       it means the length of the extent is, 1088K, definitely not a
valid
       tree block size.

       But according to [1], kernel think it's a tree block, which is
quite
       strange.
       Normally, such mismatch only happens in fs converted from ext*.

       2. Backref 741942071296 root 5 owner 71723 offset 2589392896
       num_refs 0 not found in extent tree

       num_refs 0, this is also strange, normal backref won't have a
zero
       refrence number.

       3. bad metadata [741942071296, 741943185408) crossing stripe
boundary
       It could be a false warning fixed in latest btrfsck.
       But you're using 4.4.1, so I think that's the problem.

       4. bad extent [741942071296, 741943185408), type mismatch with
chunk
       This seems to explain the problem, a data extent appears in a
       metadata chunk.
       It seems that you're really using converted btrfs.

       If so, just roll it back to ext*. Current btrfs-convert has
known
       bug but fix is still under review.

       If want to use btrfs, use a newly created one instead of
btrfs-convert.

       Thanks,
       Qu


               Regards,
               Soukyuu

               P.S.: please add me to CC when replying as I did not
               subscribe to the
               mailing list. Majordomo won't let me use my hotmail
address
               and I
               don't want that much traffic on this address.

           --
           To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
           linux-btrfs" in
           the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
           <mailto:majord...@vger.kernel.org>
           More majordomo info at
http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs"
in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html








--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to