Re: Is this normal? Should I use scrub?
On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 09:58:39AM +, Andy Smith wrote: > Hi Hugo, > > Thanks for your help. Makes a change from you answering my questions. :) > On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 03:42:02PM +, Hugo Mills wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 03:11:14PM +, Andy Smith wrote: > > > Should I run a scrub as well? > > > >Yes. The output you've had so far will be just the pieces that the > > FS has tried to read, and where, as a result, it's been able to detect > > the out-of-date data. A scrub will check and fix everything. > > Thanks, things seem to be fine now. :) > > What's the difference between "verufy" and "csum" here? verify would be where the internal consistency checks for metadata failed. That might be, for example, where it's detected that a tree node has a newer transaction ID (effectively a monotonic timestamp) than its parent. This should never happen, so the parent is probably out of date. If there's another copy of the metadata that doesn't have the same problem, it can be used to repair the obviously-wrong copy. csum is where the checksum validation failed -- this would be, for example, where some data was modified on one copy and left unchanged on the older copy, but the metadata for both copies was updated. In that case, the data on the out-of-date drive wouldn't match the checksum, and needs to be updated from the good copy. Hugo. > scrub status for 472ee2b3-4dc3-4fc1-80bc-5ba967069ceb > scrub device /dev/sdh (id 2) history > scrub started at Wed Apr 1 20:05:58 2015 and finished after 14642 > seconds > total bytes scrubbed: 383.42GiB with 0 errors > scrub device /dev/sdg (id 3) history > scrub started at Wed Apr 1 20:05:58 2015 and finished after 14504 > seconds > total bytes scrubbed: 382.62GiB with 0 errors > scrub device /dev/sdf (id 4) history > scrub started at Wed Apr 1 20:05:58 2015 and finished after 14436 > seconds > total bytes scrubbed: 383.00GiB with 0 errors > scrub device /dev/sdk (id 5) history > scrub started at Wed Apr 1 20:05:58 2015 and finished after 21156 > seconds > total bytes scrubbed: 1.13TiB with 14530 errors > error details: verify=10909 csum=3621 > corrected errors: 14530, uncorrectable errors: 0, unverified errors: 0 > scrub device /dev/sdj (id 6) history > scrub started at Wed Apr 1 20:05:58 2015 and finished after 5693 > seconds > total bytes scrubbed: 119.42GiB with 0 errors > scrub device /dev/sde (id 7) history > scrub started at Wed Apr 1 20:05:58 2015 and finished after 5282 > seconds > total bytes scrubbed: 114.45GiB with 0 errors > > Cheers, > Andy -- Hugo Mills | Debugging is like hitting yourself in the head with hugo@... carfax.org.uk | hammer: it feels so good when you find the bug, and http://carfax.org.uk/ | you're allowed to stop debugging. PGP: 65E74AC0 |PotatoEngineer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Is this normal? Should I use scrub?
Hi Hugo, Thanks for your help. On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 03:42:02PM +, Hugo Mills wrote: > On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 03:11:14PM +, Andy Smith wrote: > > Should I run a scrub as well? > >Yes. The output you've had so far will be just the pieces that the > FS has tried to read, and where, as a result, it's been able to detect > the out-of-date data. A scrub will check and fix everything. Thanks, things seem to be fine now. :) What's the difference between "verufy" and "csum" here? scrub status for 472ee2b3-4dc3-4fc1-80bc-5ba967069ceb scrub device /dev/sdh (id 2) history scrub started at Wed Apr 1 20:05:58 2015 and finished after 14642 seconds total bytes scrubbed: 383.42GiB with 0 errors scrub device /dev/sdg (id 3) history scrub started at Wed Apr 1 20:05:58 2015 and finished after 14504 seconds total bytes scrubbed: 382.62GiB with 0 errors scrub device /dev/sdf (id 4) history scrub started at Wed Apr 1 20:05:58 2015 and finished after 14436 seconds total bytes scrubbed: 383.00GiB with 0 errors scrub device /dev/sdk (id 5) history scrub started at Wed Apr 1 20:05:58 2015 and finished after 21156 seconds total bytes scrubbed: 1.13TiB with 14530 errors error details: verify=10909 csum=3621 corrected errors: 14530, uncorrectable errors: 0, unverified errors: 0 scrub device /dev/sdj (id 6) history scrub started at Wed Apr 1 20:05:58 2015 and finished after 5693 seconds total bytes scrubbed: 119.42GiB with 0 errors scrub device /dev/sde (id 7) history scrub started at Wed Apr 1 20:05:58 2015 and finished after 5282 seconds total bytes scrubbed: 114.45GiB with 0 errors Cheers, Andy -- 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
Re: Is this normal? Should I use scrub?
Hi, Andy, On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 03:11:14PM +, Andy Smith wrote: > I have a 6 device RAID-1 filesystem: [snip tale of a filesystem with out of data data on one copy of the RAID] > I have now got a new enclosure and put this system back together > with all six devices. I was not expecting this filesystem to mount > without assistance on boot because of /dev/sdk being "stale" > compared to the other devices. I suppose this incorrect view is a > holdover from my experience with mdadm. > > Anyway, I booted it and /srv/tank was mounted automatically with all > six devices. I got a bunch of these messages as soon as it was > mounted: > > http://pastie.org/private/2ghahjwtzlcm6hwp66hkg > > There's lots more of it but it's all like that. That paste is from > the end of the log and there haven't been any more such message > since, so that's about 20 minutes (the times are in GMT). > > Is that normal output indicating that btrfs is repairing the > "staleness" of sdk from the other copy? Yes, exactly. That output you pasted looks pretty much exactly like what I'd expect to see in the situation described above. You might also expect to see some checksum errors corrected in the data, as well as the metadata messages you're getting. > I seem to be able to use the filesystem and a cursory inspection > isn't turning up anything that I can't read or that seems > corrupted. I will now run checksums against my last good backup. > > Should I run a scrub as well? Yes. The output you've had so far will be just the pieces that the FS has tried to read, and where, as a result, it's been able to detect the out-of-date data. A scrub will check and fix everything. Hugo. -- Hugo Mills | My karma has run over my dogma. hugo@... carfax.org.uk | http://carfax.org.uk/ | PGP: 65E74AC0 | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Is this normal? Should I use scrub?
Hello, I have a 6 device RAID-1 filesystem: $ sudo btrfs fi df /srv/tank Data, RAID1: total=1.24TiB, used=1.24TiB System, RAID1: total=32.00MiB, used=184.00KiB Metadata, RAID1: total=3.00GiB, used=1.65GiB unknown, single: total=512.00MiB, used=0.00 $ sudo btrfs fi sh /srv/tank Label: 'tank' uuid: 472ee2b3-4dc3-4fc1-80bc-5ba967069ceb Total devices 6 FS bytes used 1.24TiB devid2 size 1.82TiB used 384.03GiB path /dev/sdh devid3 size 1.82TiB used 383.00GiB path /dev/sdg devid4 size 1.82TiB used 384.00GiB path /dev/sdf devid5 size 2.73TiB used 1.13TiB path /dev/sdk devid6 size 1.82TiB used 121.00GiB path /dev/sdj devid7 size 2.73TiB used 116.00GiB path /dev/sde Btrfs v3.14.2 All of these devices are in an external eSATA enclosure. A few days ago (I believe) something went wrong with the enclosure hardware and the SCSI bus kept getting reset over and over. At one point three of the six devices were kicked out and the filesystem was left running (read-only) on three devices. Through some trial and error I determined that the enclosure was taking exception to one of the devices, and by removing it I was able to get things up and running with five devices, writeable, mounted in degraded mode. /dev/sdk is the device that was kept out of the filesystem. I do not believe that there is anything wrong with /dev/sdk as I put it in another system and was able to read it entirely, do SMART long tests on it, etc. I wasn't able to prove it is a hardware problem until I took the enclosure out of service as it's the only enclosure I had. So that's a task for later. I have now got a new enclosure and put this system back together with all six devices. I was not expecting this filesystem to mount without assistance on boot because of /dev/sdk being "stale" compared to the other devices. I suppose this incorrect view is a holdover from my experience with mdadm. Anyway, I booted it and /srv/tank was mounted automatically with all six devices. I got a bunch of these messages as soon as it was mounted: http://pastie.org/private/2ghahjwtzlcm6hwp66hkg There's lots more of it but it's all like that. That paste is from the end of the log and there haven't been any more such message since, so that's about 20 minutes (the times are in GMT). Is that normal output indicating that btrfs is repairing the "staleness" of sdk from the other copy? I seem to be able to use the filesystem and a cursory inspection isn't turning up anything that I can't read or that seems corrupted. I will now run checksums against my last good backup. Should I run a scrub as well? Cheers, Andy -- 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
