similar to: Damaged super block / fs root

Hi folks! Been using btrfs for quite a while now, worked great until now. Got power-loss on my machine and now i have the "parent transid verify failed on X wanted X found X" problem. So I can''t get it to mount. My btrfs is spread over sda (2tb), sdc(2tb), sdd(1tb). Is this something that an offline fsck could fix ? If so is the fsck-util being developed ? Is there a way to

We have a disk array behind two external SATA port multipliers (four disks on each multiplier) which has been running btrfs (RAID 1 for both data and metadata). Unfortunately, earlier today it seems one of the SATA cables came loose, resulting in the kernel (2.6.37) eventually OOPSing although apparently not before writing quite a bit of data. Upon reboot, I was met with the dreaded,

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

So I''m having a bit of trouble with one of my btrfs filesystems. It isn''t mounting after a power failure. I can''t get restore or btrfsck to run, even on backup supers. I''ve pasted some output below. My btrfs-progs below come from git this morning, running on linux 3.2.0. # mount /dev/md2 /media/test/ mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on

Hi, I''m running OpenSuse 12.2 with kernel 3.5.3 HBA= LSI 1068e using the MPTSAS driver (patched) (https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/1379181/) SANOS1:/media # uname -a Linux SANOS1 3.5.3 #3 SMP Sun Sep 2 18:44:37 CEST 2012 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux I''ve tried to simulate a disk replacement but it seems that now /dev/sdg is stuck in the btrfs pool (RAID10) SANOS1:/media #

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

Hey, I''d start by saying that I know Btrfs is a still experimental, and so there''s no guarantee that one would be able to help me at all... But I thought I''ll try anyway :-) Few months ago I bought a new laptop and installed ArchLinux on it, with Btrfs on the root filesystem... I know, it''s not the smartest thing to do... After a few month I had issues with my

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:

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

Just a quick update, I''ve dropped the hashing stuff in favor of doing a memcmp in the kernel to make sure the data is still the same. The thing that takes a while is reading the data up from disk, so doing a memcmp of the entire buffer isn''t that big of a deal, not to mention there''s a possiblity for malicious users if there is a problem with the hashing algorithms we

This is a first draft of a subvolume quota implementation. It is possible to limit subvolumes and any group of subvolumes and also to track the amount of space that will get freed when deleting snapshots. The current version is functionally incomplete, with the main missing feature being the initial scan and rescan of an existing filesystem. I put some effort into writing an introduction into

(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

The kernel side for rescan, which is needed if you want to enable qgroup tracking on a non-empty volume. The first patch splits btrfs_qgroup_account_ref into readable ans reusable units. The second patch adds the rescan implementation (refer to its commit message for a description of the algorithm). The third patch starts an automatic rescan when qgroups are enabled. It is only separated to

Hi all - Here''s my current error handling patchset, against 3.1-rc8. Almost all of this patchset is preparing for actual error handling. Before we start in on that work, I''m trying to reduce the surface we need to worry about. It turns out that there is a ton of code that returns an error code but never actually reports an error. The patchset has grown to 65 patches. 46 of them

Since there is a filesystem state, we should deal with it carefully at mount, umount and remount. - At mount, the FS state should be checked if there is error on these FS. If it does have, btrfsck is recommended. - At umount, the FS state should be saved into disk for consistency. Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <liubo2009@cn.fujitsu.com> --- fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 47

Hello, I got a kernel bug error, my guess from BTRFS. Here is the report, Oct 22 20:44:43 localhost kernel: [25554.947970] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0000000000000030 Oct 22 20:44:43 localhost kernel: [25554.948002] IP: [<ffffffffa01ab027>] btrfs_print_leaf+0x37/0x880 [btrfs] Oct 22 20:44:43 localhost kernel: [25554.948037] PGD bfa44067 PUD bfa43067 PMD 0 Oct

Hi all - The following 9 patches add more error handling to the btrfs code: - Add btrfs_panic - Catch locking failures in {set,clear}_extent_bit - Push up set_extent_bit errors to callers - Push up lock_extent errors to callers - Push up clear_extent_bit errors to callers - Push up unlock_extent errors to callers - Make pin_down_extent return void - Push up btrfs_pin_extent errors to

Hi, The following patches add support for ext4 and btrfs to PV-GRUB. These patches are taken nearly verbatim from those provided by Fedora and Gentoo. We''ve been using these patches for the PV-GRUB images available in EC2 for some time now with no problems. Changes from v1: - Makefile has been changed to check the exit code from patch - The btrfs patch has been rebased to apply

Heyho! (This is using btrfs from Debian''s 2.6.32 2.6.32-3-kirkwood kernel (-9 package; btrfs tools is v0.19-16-g075587c) A few observations about btrfsck: a btrfsck run on a 2T volume (4 disks) on a QNAP appliance (512M ram) got killed by Mr. OOM Killer. Initially, I was quite surprised. I''m only moderately surprised now since it might well be that I forgot to enable