Re: FS unmountable after RAID/LVM problems

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

 




On 2018年03月14日 17:36, Dirk Gouders wrote:
> Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@xxxxxxx> writes:
> 
>> On 2018年03月14日 16:53, Dirk Gouders wrote:
>>> Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@xxxxxxx> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 2018年03月13日 22:49, Dirk Gouders wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> # btrfs inspect dump-tree -b 848986112 /dev/loop0p1
>>>>>> # btrfs inspect dump-tree -b 72089600 /dev/loop0p1
>>>>>
>>>>> OK.
>>>>>
>>>>> (This mail gets a bit long but I don't want to snip probably important
>>>>>  information above.)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Feel free to snip.
>>>> As the involved tree block is not shown anywhere.
>>>>
>>>> So it's not any root node corrupted.
>>>> It may be some extent tree node corrupted in this case.
>>>>
>>>> While to inspect it, we need some new functionality in btrfs inspect tree.
>>>>
>>>> Before that, would you please try the following patch and to see if it
>>>> helps btrfs-restore to salvage any data?
>>>
>>> I tried it and got the following output:
>>>
>>> # btrfs restore /dev/loop0p1 /mnt/
>>> checksum verify failed on 363069440 found 296FB15A wanted F0AFE59D
>>> checksum verify failed on 363069440 found 296FB15A wanted F0AFE59D
>>> checksum verify failed on 363069440 found DC09290B wanted C630FD61
>>> checksum verify failed on 363069440 found 296FB15A wanted F0AFE59D
>>> bytenr mismatch, want=363069440, have=17552567724568668829
>>> Could not open root, trying backup super
>>> checksum verify failed on 363069440 found 296FB15A wanted F0AFE59D
>>> checksum verify failed on 363069440 found 296FB15A wanted F0AFE59D
>>> checksum verify failed on 363069440 found DC09290B wanted C630FD61
>>> checksum verify failed on 363069440 found 296FB15A wanted F0AFE59D
>>> bytenr mismatch, want=363069440, have=17552567724568668829
>>> Could not open root, trying backup super
>>> ERROR: superblock bytenr 274877906944 is larger than device size 10741612544
>>> Could not open root, trying backup super
>>
>> So it's still something important in the tree.
>>
>> Would you please apply this patch?
>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10281329/
>>
>> And then dump the tree again using that newly added -f option?
>> (Both stdout and stderr is needed)
>>
>> The dump command would be:
>> # btrfs inspect dump-tree -f -b <bytenr>
>>
>> Needed bytenrs would be:
>> 848773120	tree root
>> 848789504	extent root (My primary guess)
> 
> I am currently preparing the diagnosis data but after the above bytenr
> the log grew to already 28MB.  Should I send all that data to the list?

Nope, stderr is enough.

Thanks,
Qu

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Dirk
> 
>> 30408704	dev root
>> 850509824	fs root (this could contain *FILENAME*, please censor
>>                          them if needed, and it may be large)
>> 212353024	uuid tree (not really imporatant)
>>
>> And if it's extent root, we could enhance btrfs-progs open_ctree() to
>> handle it for RO mode (needed by btrfs-restore)
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Qu

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


[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