Chris, Now that you're back from vacation, I was wondering if you would be able to provide a revised estimate on how long this will take. Also, of the four parts, which will be necessary to correct a 'parent transid verify failed' error? Thank you for your time, --Erik On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Chris Mason <chris.mason@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Excerpts from Yalonda Gishtaka's message of 2011-08-17 21:09:37 -0400: >> Chris Mason <chris.mason <at> oracle.com> writes: >> >> > >> > Aside from making sure the kernel code is stable, btrfsck is all I'm >> > working on right now. I do expect a release in the next two weeks that >> > can recover your data (and many others). >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Chris >> > -- >> >> >> Chris, >> >> We're all on the edge of our seats. Can you provide an updated ETA on the >> release of the first functional btrfsck tool? No pressure or anything ;) > > Hi everyone, > > I've been working non-stop on this. Currently fsck has four parts: > > 1) mount -o recovery mode. I've posted smaller forms of these patches > in the past that bypass log tree replay. The new versions have code to > create stub roots for trees that can't be read (like the extent > allocation tree) and will allow the mount to proceed. > > 2) fsck that scans for older roots. This takes advantage of older > copies of metadata to look for consistent tree roots on disk. The > downside is that it is currently very slow. I'm trying to speed it up > by limiting the search to only the metadata block groups and a few other > tricks. > > 3) fsck that fixes the extent allocation tree and the chunk tree. This > is where I've been spending most of my time. The problem is that it > tends to recover some filesystems and badly break others. While I'm > fixing up the corner cases that work poorly, I'm adding an undo log to > the fsck code so that you can get the FS back into its original state if > you don't like the result of the fsck. > > 4) The rest of the corruptions can be dealt with fairly well from the > kernel. I have a series of patches to make the extent allocation tree > less strict about reference counts and other rules, basically allowing > the FS to limp along instead of crash. > > These four things together are basically my minimal set of features > required for fedora and our own internal projects at Oracle to start > treating us as production filesystem. > > There are always bugs to fix, and I have #1 and #2 mostly ready. I had > hoped to get #1 out the door before I left on vacation and I still might > post it tonight. > > -chris > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
