similar to: btrfsck: doesn't correct errors

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

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

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

Hi, I thought that I would attempt a quick little patch that will make btrfsck into a No-op when called as fsck.btrfsck. The reasoning is that the FAQ states that it is recommended and safe to do so, and the current 12.04 version of Ubuntu just symlinks fsck.btrfsck to btrfsck instead of /bin/true. PS - Apologies if I mess this git send-email up! Dan McGrath (1): btrfs-progs: No-op when

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

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

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

Hi all, I have two multi-disk btrfs filesystems on a Arch linux 3.4.0 system. After a power failure, both filesystems refuse to mount [ 10.402284] Btrfs loaded [ 10.402714] device fsid 1e7c18a4-02d6-44b1-8eaf-c01378009cd3 devid 4 transid 65282 /dev/sdc [ 10.403108] btrfs: force zlib compression [ 10.403130] btrfs: enabling inode map caching [ 10.403152] btrfs: disk space caching is

Hi there, I have a system on which btrfsck gives the following output... I don''t understand the meaning of the reported errors, so any clue would be appreciated. Is this something I should worry about, or not ? Would I be advised to try "--repair" ? (Last time I tried this one, it completely b0rked a filesystem, beyond repair, and my wife would kill me ifever I trash this one,

Hello, On a newly created filesystem with btrfs-progs-git-20111009 and the 3.1.0-rc8 kernel I am getting the following error when doing btrfsck after main OS installation fs tree 256 refs 2 unresolved ref root 256 dir 256 index 2 namelen 8 name __active error 600 found 4215058432 bytes used err is 1 total csum bytes: 3962760 total tree bytes: 157192192 total fs tree bytes: 146976768

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

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

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 tried an (offline) btrfsck and got the following error message: > btrfsck /dev/sdb3 btrfsck: btrfsck.c:584: splice_shared_node: Assertion `!(src == &src_node->root_cache)'' failed. Aborted I use kernel version 2.6.32.2 with builtin btrfs-drivers. Greetings, Michael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to

(switched to email. Please respond via emailed reply-to-all, not via the bugzilla web interface). On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 13:20:20 GMT bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org wrote: > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=29302 > > Summary: Null pointer dereference with large max_sectors_kb > Product: IO/Storage > Version: 2.5 > Kernel

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