similar to: btrfsck failed

Signed-off-by: Yan Zheng <zheng.yan@oracle.com> --- diff -urp btrfs-progs-unstable/btrfsck.c btrfs-progs-2/btrfsck.c --- btrfs-progs-unstable/btrfsck.c 2009-09-28 15:54:55.980479398 +0800 +++ btrfs-progs-2/btrfsck.c 2010-01-31 09:46:24.645485459 +0800 @@ -581,7 +581,6 @@ again: } ret = insert_existing_cache_extent(dst, &ins->cache); if (ret == -EEXIST) { - WARN_ON(src ==

I suspect this might be related to previous btrfs errors I''ve had on the same filesystem. See: http://python.ca/nas/linux/btrfs_bug.txt The most recent kernel message is: WARNING: at fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:8239 btrfs_free_block_groups+0x218/0x275() Hardware name: MS-7388 Modules linked in: udf crc_itu_t isofs loop nls_iso8859_1 vboxnetflt vboxdrv nls_utf8 nls_cp437

A user reported that fsck was complaining about unresolved refs for some snapshots. You can reproduce this by doing mkfs.btrfs /dev/sdb mount /dev/sdb /mnt btrfs subvol snap /mnt/ /mnt/a btrfs subvol snap /mnt/ /mnt/b btrfs subvol del /mnt/a umount /mnt btrfsck /dev/sdb and you''d get this unresolved ref root 258 dir 256 index 2 namelen 1 name a error 600 because snapshot b has a dir

Signed-off-by: Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@gmail.com> --- man/Makefile | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ man/btrfsck.8.in | 17 +++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) create mode 100644 man/Makefile create mode 100644 man/btrfsck.8.in diff --git a/man/Makefile b/man/Makefile new file mode 100644 index 0000000..2665dd1 --- /dev/null +++ b/man/Makefile

i''m not a C developer, but i like to think i know enough to be dangerous (pragmatic) :-D building from git master failed with: .......... .......... gcc -Wp,-MMD,./.btrfsck.o.d,-MT,btrfsck.o -Wall -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -g -Werror -Os -c btrfsck.c cc1: warnings being treated as errors btrfsck.c: In function ‘maybe_free_inode_rec’: btrfsck.c:323:2: error: implicit

The new xfstests will run fsck against the volume to make sure we didn''t introduce any inconsistencies, which is nice except we will error out immediately if we mount with inode_cache. We need to make btrfsck skip the special free space cache items and then just assume that we have a link for the free space cache inode item. This makes btrfsck pass with success on a fs with inode cache

btrfs 0.19 Ubuntu 10.10 Linux linux 2.6.35-23-generic #41-Ubuntu SMP Wed Nov 24 11:55:36 UTC 2010 x86_64 GNU/Linux I create a new btrfs on a 200GB disk with one partition. I mount the partition. I create a snapshot of that partition. I unmount the partition. I run btrfsck and it says I have an "unresolved ref" error. If I create two snaps, I get three errors. If I create three snaps, I

Hi, I''m having a filesystem that''s been a bit mangled by external causes, so I thought I''d see how much I could salvage (it''s not critical, though). Thus, I pulled btrfsck from git and ran: pannekake:~/btrfs-progs# ./btrfsck --repair /dev/mapper/pannekake-backup-btrfs It spit out a ton of warnings like these (I can get the whole log if you''re

Hello, trying out btrfs on my linux installation. I am running Funtoo with Linux 3.0 kernel. After a reboot kernel panicked (no access to error log since it is my root volume that failed). I get this using a rescue cd (2.6.38, btrfs v 0.19) and then trying to mount : [  752.129118] btrfs bad tree block start 0 131072 [  752.129152] btrfs: failed to read chunk root on sda5 [  752.132190] btrfs:

Hi! We have some btrfs rsync-snapshot backup servers which have been running since about mid-2009, with a pretty good record so far. We''ve been following the development kernels and hitting some bugs here an there, but we still haven''t managed to lose anything yet. The main problems we have ran in to relate to ENOSPC and reporting full when "df" only shows 74% used,

Hi all, I''ve been playing with btrfs resize recently and run into strange looking behavior to me. One of my simple test scenario was following: - partition some block device (lets say sda sectors 2-2000 are sda1) - try to create btrfs on top of it (just mkfs.btrfs /dev/sda1) - fill the fs with data - unmount the device - let''s simulate usual mistake here: downsize the

Hi there, after my filesystem is broken (I have no idea why, because last shut down was nomal) I tried to repair it with btrfsck ( Btrfs v0.20-rc1-56-g6cd836d). But unfortunately the process breaks with: parent transid verify failed on 29896704 wanted 392661 found 395689 parent transid verify failed on 29896704 wanted 392661 found 395689 parent transid verify failed on 29896704 wanted 392661

Is anyone interested in some part of this filesystem to figure out how it failed? Or can I erase and start again? Kind regards, -Evert Vorster- On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Evert Vorster <evorster@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi there. > > I have a btrfs on a raw device. (/dev/sda insted of in a partition, like > /dev/sda1 ) > The device in question is a USB hard drive with a 1TB

Chris Mason on 10 Feb 13:17: > Excerpts from Ben Gamari''s message of 2011-02-09 21:52:20 -0500: > > Over the last several months there have been many claims regarding > > the release of the rewritten btrfsck. Unfortunately, despite > > numerous claims that it will be released Real Soon Now(c), I have > > yet to see even a repository with preliminary code. Did I

NOTE: in order to apply this patch you should: git mv btrfsck.c cmd-fsck.c This patch moves btrfsck in to "btrfs fsck". It also adds support for symlinks to the btrfs binary to retain compablity, =) I think something should be done to the help description but i''m not sure what... Anyway, feedback is welcome. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe

After upgrading from 2.6.39-rc7 to 2.6.39 this morning, I tried to mount my 3 disk btrfs volume (no subvolumes, space caching enabled, lzo compression) and received some parent transid errors (going back to rc7 didn''t help, though): btrfs: disk space caching is enabled parent transid verify failed on 6038227976192 wanted 337418 found 337853 parent transid verify failed on 6038227976192

Some programs like btrfsck should not be run on a mounted filesystem. This patch adds a check in btrfs_open_devices() for the mount status of every device belonging to the filesystem. The function check_mount() gets improved support for loopback devices. It now detects if the program is run on the file that is being used by the loopback device. Signed-off-by: Andi Drebes

Is it expected that running btrfsck more than once will keep reporting errors? Below is the end of a btrfsck output when run the second time. backpointer mismatch on [111942471680 32768] owner ref check failed [111942471680 32768] ref mismatch on [111942504448 40960] extent item 1, found 0 Incorrect local backref count on 111942504448 root 5 owner 160739 offset 3440640 found 0 wanted 1 back

Hi All, I''m trying to repair a broken fs using btrfsck and am hitting a failed assertion. I''d appreciate any suggestions for what to do next. Is there any thing I can do to help fix this bug? Any other information from my FS which would help? If the FS could be salvaged that would be a bonus, but I''m more interested in providing a useful bug report before wiping the

Exec btrfsck on btrfs with snapshots that are under a dropping progress will cause prompt on "ref mismatch". However we do not want this kind of prompt, since an remount operation will continue the dropping progress. Here the prompt is nonsense. Signed-off-by: Gui Hecheng <guihc.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> --- cmds-check.c | 101