Le 20/09/2016 à 22:18, Alexandre Poux a écrit :
> Le 20/09/2016 à 21:46, Chris Murphy a écrit :
>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Alexandre Poux <pums...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Le 20/09/2016 à 21:11, Chris Murphy a écrit :
>>>> And no backup? Umm, I'd resolve that sooner than anything else.
>>> Yeah you are absolutely right, this was a temporary solution which came
>>> to be not that temporary.
>>> And I regret it already...
>> Well on the bright side, if this were LVM or mdadm linear/concat
>> array, the whole thing would be toast because any other file system
>> would have lost too much fs metadata on the missing device.
>>>>  It
>>>> should be true that it'll tolerate a read only mount indefinitely, but
>>>> read write? Not sure. This sort of edge case isn't well tested at all
>>>> seeing as it required changing the kernel to reduce safe guards. So
>>>> all bets are off the whole thing could become unmountable, not even
>>>> read only, and then it's a scraping job.
>>> I'm not that crazy, I tried the patch inside a virtual machine on
>>> virtual drives...
>>> And since it's only virtual, it may not work on the real partition...
>> Are you sure the virtual setup lacked a CHUNK_ITEM on the missing
>> device? That might be what pinned it in that case.
> In fact in my virtual setup there was more chunk missing (1 metadata 1
> System and 1 Data).
> I will try to do a setup closer to my real one.
Good news, I made a test were in my virtual setup, I was missing no
chunk at all
And in this case, It has no problem to remove it !
What I did is
- make an array with 6 disks (data single, metadata raid1)
- dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/somefile bs=64M count=16 # make a 1G file
- use btrfs-debug-tree to identify which device was not used
- shutdown the vm, remove this virtual device, and restart the vm
- mount the array in degraded but with read write thanks to the patched
- btrfs remove missing
- and voilà !
I will try with something else than /dev/null, but this is very encouraging
Do you think that my test is too trivial ?
Should I try something else before trying on the real partition with the
overlay ?

>> You could try some sort of overlay for your remaining drives.
>> Something like this:
>> https://raid.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Recovering_a_failed_software_RAID#Making_the_harddisks_read-only_using_an_overlay_file
>> Make sure you understand the gotcha about cloning which applies here:
>> https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Gotchas
>> I think it's safe to use blockdev --setro on every real device  you're
>> trying to protect from changes. And when mounting you'll at least need
>> to use device= mount option to explicitly mount each of the overlay
>> devices. Based on the wiki, I'm wincing, I don't really know for sure
>> if device mount option is enough to compel Btrfs to only use those
>> devices and not go off the rails and still use one of the real
>> devices, but at least if they're setro it won't matter (the mount will
>> just fail somehow due to write failures).
>> So now you can try removing the missing device... and see what
>> happens. You could inspect the overlay files and see what changes were
>> made.
> Wow that looks like nice.
> So, if it work, and if we find a way to fix the filesystem inside the vm,
> I can use this over the real partion to check if it works before trying
> the fix for real.
> Nice idea.
>>>> What do you get for btrfs-debug-tree -t 3 <dev>
>>>> That should show the chunk tree, and what I'm wondering if if the
>>>> chunk tree has any references to chunks on the missing device. Even if
>>>> there are no extents on that device, if there are chunks, that might
>>>> be one of the safeguards.
>>> You'll find it attached.
>>> The missing device is the devid 8 (since it's the only one missing in
>>> btrfs fi show)
>>> I found it only once line 63
>> Yeah bummer. Not used for system, data, or metadata chunks at all.

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