Re: tree first key mismatch detected (reproducible error)

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

 



Thank you, Martin. So I started memtester yesterday and meanwhile it
has run 90 loops w/o any errors.
Back to btrfs:

- I could restore pretty much all data with "btrfs restore", except
for some virtualbox disk images
- "btrfs check --init-extent-tree" took some hours to finish, but I
still couldn't mount the partition due to multiple "corrupt leaf"
errors
- mounting with "-o backuproot" resulted in the same error
- "btrfs rescue super-recover" said everything was fine
- after "btrfs rescue chunk-recover" or "btrfs check --repair" there
was only 1 "corrupt leaf" error left, but mounting was still not
possible

So basically the mount errors after "btrfs check --init-extent-tree"
and all later commands looked like this:

[64385.439530] BTRFS critical (device nvme0n1p3): corrupt leaf:
block=156450816 slot=30 extent bytenr=51548897280 len=262144 invalid
generation, have 315981823 expect (0, 2265510]
[64385.440779] BTRFS error (device nvme0n1p3): block=156450816 read
time tree block corruption detected
[64385.440785] BTRFS error (device nvme0n1p3): failed to read block groups: -5
[64385.493696] BTRFS error (device nvme0n1p3): open_ctree failed
mount: /mnt/nvme: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on
/dev/nvme0n1p3, missing codepage or helper program, or other error.

Then I gave up and called mkfs.btrfs. Currently the restored data is
on its way back to the device.

-- 
Thorsten

Am Sa., 25. Jan. 2020 um 17:01 Uhr schrieb Martin Raiber <martin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> On 25.01.2020 16:44 Thorsten Hirsch wrote:
> > Thanks, guys.
> >
> > However, checking the RAM with memtest86 hasn't revealed any errors.
> > Currently I let it run another pass, but so far everything's good.
> > Here's the output of btrfs check...
>
> just from my experience with non-ECC RAM:
> When I had RAM corruption it only occurred after a few days of uptime
> and only when I ran memtester on Linux. memtest86/memtest86+ didn't show
> any problems even when running for a week (and in multi cpu mode).
>
> > [1/7] checking root items
> > [2/7] checking extents
> > leaf parent key incorrect 109690880
> > bad block 109690880
> > ERROR: errors found in extent allocation tree or chunk allocation
> > [3/7] checking free space cache
> > [4/7] checking fs roots
> > root 5 inode 3583162 errors 1040, bad file extent, some csum missing
> > root 5 inode 3767022 errors 1040, bad file extent, some csum missing
> > root 5 inode 3819591 errors 1040, bad file extent, some csum missing
> > root 5 inode 4108194 errors 1040, bad file extent, some csum missing
> > ERROR: errors found in fs roots
> > Opening filesystem to check...
> > Checking filesystem on /dev/nvme0n1p3
> > UUID: 26717c9f-df62-4c57-a482-b9e4880b31e6
> > found 6132469760 bytes used, error(s) found
> > total csum bytes: 0
> > total tree bytes: 4161536
> > total fs tree bytes: 0
> > total extent tree bytes: 3850240
> > btree space waste bytes: 1115823
> > file data blocks allocated: 108003328
> >  referenced 108003328
> >
>



[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