Re: should btrfsck fix a bad superblock?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Chris Murphy posted on Mon, 28 Dec 2015 17:10:14 -0700 as excerpted:

> Hi,
> 
> I (intentionally) used wipefs -a on a device with a btrfs. As expected
> btrfs check doesn't recognize the device as having a btrfs volume
> anymore.
> 
> Slightly surprising that it doesn't mention other intact supers are
> found.
> 
> Most surprising that options -s1 --repair doesn't fix it.
> 
> I thought maybe it's intentional, only with explicitly bad magic, and
> I'd get different results if it were zero'd. So I zero'd it and I get
> the same results. s0 superblock isn't repaired with --repair.
> 
> Bug?
> 
> Of course I can fix it with echo+dd.

Btrfs check's -s option simply lets you use a different superblock.  I 
don't believe check is designed to actually fix superblocks, tho I guess 
with --repair it fixes certain bad fields in them.

What you want to actually recover bad superblocks from good copies is 
btrfs rescue super-recover.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

--
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




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux