On 28 May 2017 at 15:56, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Bill Williamson posted on Sun, 28 May 2017 12:46:00 +1000 as excerpted: > >> At first I got the failed to read log tree error, so I ran >> btrfs-zero-log. It walked back 3-4 transactions but now seems okay. >> >> After that fix: >> - btrfs check shows no errors. >> - mounting the filesystem RO works great, I can read files. >> - mounting the filesystem RW results in a huge kernel exception and a >> hang, centering around can_overcommit and >> btrfs_async_reclaim_metadata_space > > Try using the skip_balance mount option. See the btrfs (5) manpage (you > must specify the 5, or you'll get the section 8 general btrfs command > manpage). > > If that works, you can resume or cancel the balance once the filesystem > is mounted writable. Thanks for the tip, but no joy :( Exactly the same kernel oops. > The sysadmin's first rule of backups: The value of your data is defined > by the number and currency of your backups: No backups, you are defining > your data as of only trivial value, worth less than the time/trouble/ > resources necessary to make those backups. (In)Actions speak louder than > words, so the definition holds regardless of any after-the-fact protests > to the contrary. Thanks also for the backup reinforcement here, as it made me double check everything I have in place. The important data (photos etc) is backed up in a few different places and will be easy to restore. The only thing that wasn't in those backups is our minecraft world saves, so they are now backed up too :) The rest of the data is the typical "family" stuff, as in a rip of every blu ray/dvd we own, a lot of tv shows, etc. So stuff that is all replaceable, but annoys the kids that it will be gone for a short while. Eg not worth spending $$$ on a like for like backup regime. > (The second rule of backups is that a would-be backup isn't a backup > until you've tested it restorable/usable. Until then, it's only a would- > be backup, as the backup simply isn't complete until it has been tested.) Also a good reminder to check that my photos will restore from elsewhere.... and they do. > Meanwhile, turning the topic a bit, toward your suggested 8 TB drives. > Be aware that many of those are archive-targeted drives and aren't > designed for normal use. I didn't consider that, as "most" of my data is semi-archival, but it still gets moved around a bit. I was indeed considering the 8TB archive hard drives you were thinking of, so thanks for the warning! I'm not asking for a specific endorsement, but should I be considering something like the seagate ironwolf or WD red drives? Thanks again for the reply BIll -- 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
