On Sat, Dec 09, 2017 at 05:43:48PM +0000, Hugo Mills wrote: > This is on 4.10, so there may have been fixes made to this since > then. If so, apologies for the noise. > > I had a filesystem on 6 devices with a badly failing drive in it > (/dev/sdi). I replaced the drive with a new one: > > # btrfs replace start /dev/sdi /dev/sdj /media/video Sorry, that should, of course, read: # btrfs replace start /dev/sdi2 /dev/sdj2 /media/video Hugo. > Once it had finished(*), I resized the device from 6 TB to 8 TB: > > # btrfs fi resize 2:max /media/video > > I also removed another, smaller, device: > > # btrfs dev del 7 /media/video > > Following this, btrfs fi show was reporting the correct device > size, but still the same device node in the filesystem: > > Label: 'amelia' uuid: f7409f7d-bea2-4818-b937-9e45d754b5f1 > Total devices 5 FS bytes used 9.15TiB > devid 2 size 7.28TiB used 6.44TiB path /dev/sdi2 > devid 3 size 3.63TiB used 3.46TiB path /dev/sde2 > devid 4 size 3.63TiB used 3.45TiB path /dev/sdd2 > devid 5 size 1.81TiB used 1.65TiB path /dev/sdh2 > devid 6 size 3.63TiB used 3.43TiB path /dev/sdc2 > > Note that device 2 definitely isn't /dev/sdi2, because /dev/sdi2 > was on a 6 TB device, not an 8 TB device. > > Finally, I physically removed the two deleted devices from the > machine. The second device came out fine, but the first (/dev/sdi) has > now resulted in this from btrfs fi show: > > Label: 'amelia' uuid: f7409f7d-bea2-4818-b937-9e45d754b5f1 > Total devices 5 FS bytes used 9.15TiB > devid 3 size 3.63TiB used 3.46TiB path /dev/sde2 > devid 4 size 3.63TiB used 3.45TiB path /dev/sdd2 > devid 5 size 1.81TiB used 1.65TiB path /dev/sdh2 > devid 6 size 3.63TiB used 3.43TiB path /dev/sdc2 > *** Some devices missing > > So, what's the *actual* current state of this filesystem? It's not > throwing write errors in the kernel logs from having a missing device, > so it seems like it's probably OK. However, the FS's idea of which > devices it's got seems to be confused. > > I suspect that if I reboot, it'll all be fine, but I'd be happier > if it hadn't got into this state in the first place. > > Is this bug fixed in later versions of the kernel? Can anyone think > of any issues I might have if I leave it in this state for a while? > Likewise, any issues I might have from a reboot? (Probably into 4.14) > > Hugo. > > (*) as an aside, it was reporting over 300% complete when it finally > completed. Not sure if that's been fixed since 4.10, either. > -- Hugo Mills | I'm on a 30-day diet. So far I've lost 18 days. hugo@... carfax.org.uk | http://carfax.org.uk/ | PGP: E2AB1DE4 |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
