This is not going so hot. Updates: booted from arch install, pre repair btrfs check: - https://pastebin.com/6vNaSdf2 btrfs check --mode=lowmem as requested by Chris: - https://pastebin.com/uSwSTVVY Then I did btrfs check --repair, which seg faulted at the end. I've typed them off of pictures I took: Starting repair. Opening filesystem to check... Checking filesystem on /dev/mapper/ssd [1/7] checking root items Fixed 0 roots. [2/7] checking extents parent transid verify failed on 20271138064 wanted 68719924810 found 448074 parent transid verify failed on 20271138064 wanted 68719924810 found 448074 Ignoring transid failure # ... repeated the previous two lines maybe hundreds of times # ended with this: ref mismatch on [12797435904 268505088] extent item 1, found 412 [1] 1814 segmentation fault (core dumped) btrfs check --repair /dev/mapper/ssd This was with btrfs-progs 5.4 (the install USB is maybe a month old). Here is the output of btrfs check after the --repair attempt: - https://pastebin.com/6MYRNdga I rebooted to write this email given the seg fault, as I wanted to make sure that I should still follow-up --repair with --init-csum-tree. I had pictures of the --repair output, but Firefox just wouldn't load imgur.com for me to post the pics and was acting really weird. In suspiciously checking dmesg, things have gone ro on me :( Here is the dmesg from this session: - https://pastebin.com/a2z7xczy The gist is: [ 40.997935] BTRFS critical (device dm-0): corrupt leaf: root=7 block=172703744 slot=0, csum end range (12980568064) goes beyond the start range (12980297728) of the next csum item [ 40.997941] BTRFS info (device dm-0): leaf 172703744 gen 450983 total ptrs 34 free space 29 owner 7 [ 40.997942] item 0 key (18446744073709551606 128 12979060736) itemoff 14811 itemsize 1472 [ 40.997944] item 1 key (18446744073709551606 128 12980297728) itemoff 13895 itemsize 916 [ 40.997945] item 2 key (18446744073709551606 128 12981235712) itemoff 13811 itemsize 84 # ... there's maybe 30 of these item n key lines in total [ 40.997984] BTRFS error (device dm-0): block=172703744 write time tree block corruption detected [ 41.016793] BTRFS: error (device dm-0) in btrfs_commit_transaction:2332: errno=-5 IO failure (Error while writing out transaction) [ 41.016799] BTRFS info (device dm-0): forced readonly [ 41.016802] BTRFS warning (device dm-0): Skipping commit of aborted transaction. [ 41.016804] BTRFS: error (device dm-0) in cleanup_transaction:1890: errno=-5 IO failure [ 41.016807] BTRFS info (device dm-0): delayed_refs has NO entry [ 41.023473] BTRFS warning (device dm-0): Skipping commit of aborted transaction. [ 41.024297] BTRFS info (device dm-0): delayed_refs has NO entry [ 44.509418] systemd-journald[416]: /var/log/journal/45c06c25e25f434195204efa939019ab/system.journal: Journal file corrupted, rotating. [ 44.509440] systemd-journald[416]: Failed to rotate /var/log/journal/45c06c25e25f434195204efa939019ab/system.journal: Read-only file system [ 44.509450] systemd-journald[416]: Failed to rotate /var/log/journal/45c06c25e25f434195204efa939019ab/user-1000.journal: Read-only file system [ 44.509540] systemd-journald[416]: Failed to write entry (23 items, 705 bytes) despite vacuuming, ignoring: Bad message # ... then a bunch of these failed journal attempts (of note: /var/log/journal was one of the bad inodes from btrfs check previously) Kindly let me know what you would recommend. I'm sadly back to an unusable system vs. a complaining/worrisome one. This is similar to the behavior I had with the m2.sata nvme drive in my original experience. After trying all of --repair, --init-csum-tree, and --init-extent-tree, I couldn't boot anymore. After my dm-crypt password at boot, I just saw a bunch of [FAILED] in the text splash output. Hoping to not repeat that with this drive. Thanks, John On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 1:29 AM Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 2020/2/8 下午12:48, John Hendy wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 5:42 PM Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On 2020/2/8 上午1:52, John Hendy wrote: > >>> Greetings, > >>> > >>> I'm resending, as this isn't showing in the archives. Perhaps it was > >>> the attachments, which I've converted to pastebin links. > >>> > >>> As an update, I'm now running off of a different drive (ssd, not the > >>> nvme) and I got the error again! I'm now inclined to think this might > >>> not be hardware after all, but something related to my setup or a bug > >>> with chromium. > >>> > >>> After a reboot, chromium wouldn't start for me and demsg showed > >>> similar parent transid/csum errors to my original post below. I used > >>> btrfs-inspect-internal to find the inode traced to > >>> ~/.config/chromium/History. I deleted that, and got a new set of > >>> errors tracing to ~/.config/chromium/Cookies. After I deleted that and > >>> tried starting chromium, I found that my btrfs /home/jwhendy pool was > >>> mounted ro just like the original problem below. > >>> > >>> dmesg after trying to start chromium: > >>> - https://pastebin.com/CsCEQMJa > >> > >> So far, it's only transid bug in your csum tree. > >> > >> And two backref mismatch in data backref. > >> > >> In theory, you can fix your problem by `btrfs check --repair > >> --init-csum-tree`. > >> > > > > Now that I might be narrowing in on offending files, I'll wait to see > > what you think from my last response to Chris. I did try the above > > when I first ran into this: > > - https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/CA+M2ft8FpjdDQ7=XwMdYQazhyB95aha_D4WU_n15M59QrimrRg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > That RO is caused by the missing data backref. > > Which can be fixed by btrfs check --repair. > > Then you should be able to delete offending files them. (Or the whole > chromium cache, and switch to firefox if you wish :P ) > > But also please keep in mind that, the transid mismatch looks happen in > your csum tree, which means your csum tree is no longer reliable, and > may cause -EIO reading unrelated files. > > Thus it's recommended to re-fill the csum tree by --init-csum-tree. > > It can be done altogether by --repair --init-csum-tree, but to be safe, > please run --repair only first, then make sure btrfs check reports no > error after that. Then go --init-csum-tree. > > > > >> But I'm more interesting in how this happened. > > > > Me too :) > > > >> Have your every experienced any power loss for your NVME drive? > >> I'm not say btrfs is unsafe against power loss, all fs should be safe > >> against power loss, I'm just curious about if mount time log replay is > >> involved, or just regular internal log replay. > >> > >> From your smartctl, the drive experienced 61 unsafe shutdown with 2144 > >> power cycles. > > > > Uhhh, hell yes, sadly. I'm a dummy running i3 and every time I get > > caught off gaurd by low battery and instant power-off, I kick myself > > and mean to set up a script to force poweroff before that happens. So, > > indeed, I've lost power a ton. Surprised it was 61 times, but maybe > > not over ~2 years. And actually, I mis-stated the age. I haven't > > *booted* from this drive in almost 2yrs. It's a corporate laptop, > > issued every 3, so the ssd drive is more like 5 years old. > > > >> Not sure if it's related. > >> > >> Another interesting point is, did you remember what's the oldest kernel > >> running on this fs? v5.4 or v5.5? > > > > Hard to say, but arch linux maintains a package archive. The nvme > > drive is from ~May 2018. The archives only go back to Jan 2019 and the > > kernel/btrfs-progs was at 4.20 then: > > - https://archive.archlinux.org/packages/l/linux/ > > There is a known bug in v5.2.0~v5.2.14 (fixed in v5.2.15), which could > cause metadata corruption. And the symptom is transid error, which also > matches your problem. > > Thanks, > Qu > > > > > Searching my Amazon orders, the SSD was in the 2015 time frame, so the > > kernel version would have been even older. > > > > Thanks for your input, > > John > > > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Qu > >>> > >>> Thanks for any pointers, as it would now seem that my purchase of a > >>> new m2.sata may not buy my way out of this problem! While I didn't > >>> want to reinstall, at least new hardware is a simple fix. Now I'm > >>> worried there is a deeper issue bound to recur :( > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> John > >>> > >>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 10:01 AM John Hendy <jw.hendy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Greetings, > >>>> > >>>> I've had this issue occur twice, once ~1mo ago and once a couple of > >>>> weeks ago. Chromium suddenly quit on me, and when trying to start it > >>>> again, it complained about a lock file in ~. I tried to delete it > >>>> manually and was informed I was on a read-only fs! I ended up biting > >>>> the bullet and re-installing linux due to the number of dead end > >>>> threads and slow response rates on diagnosing these issues, and the > >>>> issue occurred again shortly after. > >>>> > >>>> $ uname -a > >>>> Linux whammy 5.5.1-arch1-1 #1 SMP PREEMPT Sat, 01 Feb 2020 16:38:40 > >>>> +0000 x86_64 GNU/Linux > >>>> > >>>> $ btrfs --version > >>>> btrfs-progs v5.4 > >>>> > >>>> $ btrfs fi df /mnt/misc/ # full device; normally would be mounting a subvol on / > >>>> Data, single: total=114.01GiB, used=80.88GiB > >>>> System, single: total=32.00MiB, used=16.00KiB > >>>> Metadata, single: total=2.01GiB, used=769.61MiB > >>>> GlobalReserve, single: total=140.73MiB, used=0.00B > >>>> > >>>> This is a single device, no RAID, not on a VM. HP Zbook 15. > >>>> nvme0n1 259:5 0 232.9G 0 disk > >>>> ├─nvme0n1p1 259:6 0 512M 0 > >>>> part (/boot/efi) > >>>> ├─nvme0n1p2 259:7 0 1G 0 part (/boot) > >>>> └─nvme0n1p3 259:8 0 231.4G 0 part (btrfs) > >>>> > >>>> I have the following subvols: > >>>> arch: used for / when booting arch > >>>> jwhendy: used for /home/jwhendy on arch > >>>> vault: shared data between distros on /mnt/vault > >>>> bionic: root when booting ubuntu bionic > >>>> > >>>> nvme0n1p3 is encrypted with dm-crypt/LUKS. > >>>> > >>>> dmesg, smartctl, btrfs check, and btrfs dev stats attached. > >>> > >>> Edit: links now: > >>> - btrfs check: https://pastebin.com/nz6Bc145 > >>> - dmesg: https://pastebin.com/1GGpNiqk > >>> - smartctl: https://pastebin.com/ADtYqfrd > >>> > >>> btrfs dev stats (not worth a link): > >>> > >>> [/dev/mapper/old].write_io_errs 0 > >>> [/dev/mapper/old].read_io_errs 0 > >>> [/dev/mapper/old].flush_io_errs 0 > >>> [/dev/mapper/old].corruption_errs 0 > >>> [/dev/mapper/old].generation_errs 0 > >>> > >>> > >>>> If these are of interested, here are reddit threads where I posted the > >>>> issue and was referred here. > >>>> 1) https://www.reddit.com/r/btrfs/comments/ejqhyq/any_hope_of_recovering_from_various_errors_root/ > >>>> 2) https://www.reddit.com/r/btrfs/comments/erh0f6/second_time_btrfs_root_started_remounting_as_ro/ > >>>> > >>>> It has been suggested this is a hardware issue. I've already ordered a > >>>> replacement m2.sata, but for sanity it would be great to know > >>>> definitively this was the case. If anything stands out above that > >>>> could indicate I'm not setup properly re. btrfs, that would also be > >>>> fantastic so I don't repeat the issue! > >>>> > >>>> The only thing I've stumbled on is that I have been mounting with > >>>> rd.luks.options=discard and that manually running fstrim is preferred. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Many thanks for any input/suggestions, > >>>> John > >> >
