On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 5:19 AM, Tim Walberg <twalberg@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > All - > > I have a file system I'm having some issues with. The initial symptoms were that mount > would run for several hours, either committing or rolling back transactions (primarily > due to a balance that was running when the system was rebooted for other reasons - > the skip_balance mount option was specified because of this), but would then be killed > due to an OOM condition (not much else running on the box at the time - a desktop system > where everything else was waiting for the mount to finish). That's the background. Kernel > 4.8.1 - custom config, but otherwise stock kernel - and btrfs-tools 4.8.3. There were some OOM related issues early in 4.8, I would try 4.8.12 or even 4.8.14. > > Ran btrfs check, and the only thing it reports is a sequence of these: > > ref mismatch on [5400814960640 16384] extent item 0, found 1 > Backref 5400814960640 parent 5401010913280 root 5401010913280 not found in extent tree > backpointer mismatch on [5400814960640 16384] > owner ref check failed [5400814960640 16384] > > Which, to my reading are simply some missing backrefs, and probably should be one of the > easier issues to correct, but I know --repair is still considered experimental/dangerous, > so I thought I'd ask before I run it... Is this a case that --repair can be reasonably > expected to handle, or would I be better off recreating the file system and restoring from > either my saved btrfs send archives or the more reliable backups? It might be that usebackuproot,ro mount will happen faster, and you can update the backups. Then use --repair. It's still listed as dangerous but it's gotten quite a bit less dangerous in later versions. -- Chris Murphy -- 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
