Start weitergeleitete Nachricht:
Huh, turns out the Reply-To was to Chris Murphy, so here it is again for the
whole list.
Datum: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 20:34:34 +0200
Von: Marc Joliet <marcec@gmx.de>
An: Chris Murphy <lists@colorremedies.com>
Betreff: Re: ENOSPC errors during balance
Am Sat, 19 Jul 2014 11:38:08 -0600
schrieb Chris Murphy <lists@colorremedies.com>:
> The 2nd dmesg (didn't look at the 1st), has many instances like this;
>
> [96241.882138] ata2.00: exception Emask 0x1 SAct 0x7ffe0fff SErr 0x0 action
0x6 frozen
> [96241.882139] ata2.00: Ata error. fis:0x21
> [96241.882142] ata2.00: failed command: READ FPDMA QUEUED
> [96241.882148] ata2.00: cmd 60/08:00:68:0a:2d/00:00:18:00:00/40 tag 0 ncq
4096 in
> res 41/00:58:40:5c:2c/00:00:18:00:00/40 Emask 0x1 (device error)
>
> I'm not sure what this error is, it acts like an unrecoverable read
error but I'm not seeing UNC reported. It looks like ata 2.00 is sdb, which
is a member of a btrfs raid10 volume. So this isn't related to your sdg2 and
enospc error, it's a different problem.
Yeah, from what I remember reading it's related to nforce2 chipsets, but I
never pursued it, since I never really noticed any consequences (this is an old
computer that I originally build in 2006). IIRC one workaround is to switch to
1.5gpbs instead of 3gbps (but then, it already is at 1.5 Gbps, but none of the
other ports are? Might be the hard drive, I *think* it's older than the
others.), another is related to irqbalance (which I forgot about, I've just
switched it off and will see if the messages stop, but then again, my first
dmesg didn't have any of those messages).
Anyway, yes, it's unrelated to my problem :-) .
> I'm not sure of the reason for the "BTRFS info (device sdg2): 2
enospc errors during balance" but it seems informational rather than either
a warning or problem. I'd treat ext4->btrfs converted file systems to be
something of an odd duck, in that it's uncommon, therefore isn't getting
as much testing and extra caution is a good idea. Make frequent backups.
Well, I *could* just recreate the file system. Since these are my only backups
(no offsite backup as of yet), I wanted to keep the existing ones. So
btrfs-convert was a convenient way to upgrade.
But since I ended up deleting those backups anyway, I would only be losing my
hourly and a few daily backups. But it's not as if the file system is
otherwise
misbehaving.
Another random idea: the number of errors decreased the second time I ran
balance (from 4 to 2), I could run another full balance and see if it keeps
decreasing.
--
Marc Joliet
--
"People who think they know everything really annoy those of us who know we
don't" - Bjarne Stroustrup
--
Marc Joliet
--
"People who think they know everything really annoy those of us who know we
don't" - Bjarne Stroustrup