Re: btrfs send yields "ERROR: send ioctl failed with -5: Input/output error"

Zak Kohler posted on Sun, 29 Oct 2017 21:57:00 -0400 as excerpted: > So I ran memtest86+ 5.01 for >4 days: > Pass: 39 Errors: 0 Be aware that memtest86+ will detect some types of errors but not others. In particular, some years ago I had some memory (DDR1/3-digit-Opteron era), actually

Re: btrfs send yields "ERROR: send ioctl failed with -5: Input/output error"

> I will gladly repeat this process, but I am very concerned why this > corruption happened in the first place. > Can you share these steps as simple bash script? Currently I'm running few tests, I can check your script and share the results. > The only thing I could think of is that the btrfs

Re: Problem with file system

This is a very helpful thread. I want to share an interesting related story. We have a machine with 4 btrfs volumes and 4 Snapper configs. I recently discovered that Snapper timeline cleanup been turned off for 3 of those volumes. In the Snapper configs I found this setting:

Re: btrfs send yields "ERROR: send ioctl failed with -5: Input/output error"

On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 4:34 AM, Zak Kohler wrote: > >> I will gladly repeat this process, but I am very concerned why this >> corruption happened in the first place. > > Right. So everyone who

Re: [stable] btrfs name length fixes

Sorry for the late reply. On 10/30/2017 07:59 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote: On 2017年10月30日 01:15, Ben Hutchings wrote: You recently made a number of fixes to validation and use of name lengths in btrfs: 286b92f43c0d btrfs: tree-log.c: Wrong printk information about namelen 19c6dcbfa746 btrfs:

Re: [stable] btrfs name length fixes

On Mon, 2017-10-30 at 08:45 +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > On 2017年10月30日 08:19, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > On Mon, 2017-10-30 at 07:59 +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: [...] > > > These fixes will soon be replace by centralized tree-checker facilities. > > > > Is that likely to be a small enough change to be

Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] btrfs-progs: test/mkfs: Test if the minimal device size is valid

On 2017年10月28日 00:59, David Sterba wrote: > On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 08:53:24AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: >> New test case to test if the minimal device size given by "mkfs.btrfs" >> failure case is valid. >> >> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo >> --- >>

Re: [stable] btrfs name length fixes

On 2017年10月30日 08:19, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Mon, 2017-10-30 at 07:59 +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: >> >> On 2017年10月30日 01:15, Ben Hutchings wrote: >>> You recently made a number of fixes to validation and use of name >>> lengths in btrfs: >>> >>> 286b92f43c0d btrfs: tree-log.c: Wrong printk

Re: [stable] btrfs name length fixes

On Mon, 2017-10-30 at 07:59 +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > On 2017年10月30日 01:15, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > You recently made a number of fixes to validation and use of name > > lengths in btrfs: > > > > 286b92f43c0d btrfs: tree-log.c: Wrong printk information about namelen > > 19c6dcbfa746 btrfs:

Re: [stable] btrfs name length fixes

On 2017年10月30日 01:15, Ben Hutchings wrote: > You recently made a number of fixes to validation and use of name > lengths in btrfs: > > 286b92f43c0d btrfs: tree-log.c: Wrong printk information about namelen > 19c6dcbfa746 btrfs: Introduce btrfs_is_name_len_valid to avoid reading beyond >

Re: btrfs send yields "ERROR: send ioctl failed with -5: Input/output error"

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 4:34 AM, Zak Kohler wrote: > I will gladly repeat this process, but I am very concerned why this > corruption happened in the first place. Right. So everyone who can, needs to run the three scrubs on all available Btrfs volumes/devices and see if they

Re: USB upgrade fun

On 2017年10月29日 11:20, Kai Hendry wrote: > On Sat, 28 Oct 2017, at 03:58 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote: >> Don't get confused with the name, to use "fix-dev-size" you need to run >> "btrfs rescue fix-dev-size" > > [hendry@nuc btrfs-progs]$ sudo ./btrfs rescue fix-device-size /dev/sdc1 > warning, device 2