On 2020/2/9 上午9:20, John Hendy wrote: > On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 7:09 PM Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 2020/2/9 上午8:59, John Hendy wrote: >>> Also, if it's of interest, the zero-log trick was new to me. For my >>> original m2.sata nvme drive, I'd already run all of --init-csum-tree, >>> --init-extent-tree, and --repair (unsure on the order of the first >>> two, but --repair was definitely last) but could then not mount it. I >>> just ran `btrfs rescue zero-log` on it and here is the very brief >>> output from a btrfs check: >>> >>> $ sudo btrfs check /dev/mapper/nvme >>> Opening filesystem to check... >>> Checking filesystem on /dev/mapper/nvme >>> UUID: 488f733d-1dfd-4a0f-ab2f-ba690e095fe4 >>> [1/7] checking root items >>> [2/7] checking extents >>> data backref 40762777600 root 256 owner 525787 offset 0 num_refs 0 not >>> found in extent tree >>> incorrect local backref count on 40762777600 root 256 owner 525787 >>> offset 0 found 1 wanted 0 back 0x5635831f9a20 >>> incorrect local backref count on 40762777600 root 4352 owner 525787 >>> offset 0 found 0 wanted 1 back 0x56357e5a3c70 >>> backref disk bytenr does not match extent record, bytenr=40762777600, >>> ref bytenr=0 >>> backpointer mismatch on [40762777600 4096] >> >> At this stage, btrfs check --repair should be able to fix it. >> >> Or does it still segfault? > > This was the original problematic drive, the m2.sata. I just did > `btrfs check --repair` and it completed with: > > $ sudo btrfs check --repair /dev/mapper/nvme > enabling repair mode > WARNING: > > Do not use --repair unless you are advised to do so by a developer > or an experienced user, and then only after having accepted that no > fsck can successfully repair all types of filesystem corruption. Eg. > some software or hardware bugs can fatally damage a volume. > The operation will start in 10 seconds. > Use Ctrl-C to stop it. > 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 > Starting repair. > Opening filesystem to check... > Checking filesystem on /dev/mapper/nvme > UUID: 488f733d-1dfd-4a0f-ab2f-ba690e095fe4 > [1/7] checking root items > Fixed 0 roots. > [2/7] checking extents > data backref 40762777600 root 256 owner 525787 offset 0 num_refs 0 not > found in extent tree > incorrect local backref count on 40762777600 root 256 owner 525787 > offset 0 found 1 wanted 0 back 0x5561d1f74ee0 > incorrect local backref count on 40762777600 root 4352 owner 525787 > offset 0 found 0 wanted 1 back 0x5561cd31f220 > backref disk bytenr does not match extent record, bytenr=40762777600, > ref bytenr=0 > backpointer mismatch on [40762777600 4096] > repair deleting extent record: key [40762777600,168,4096] > adding new data backref on 40762777600 root 256 owner 525787 offset 0 found 1 > Repaired extent references for 40762777600 > No device size related problem found > [3/7] checking free space cache > cache and super generation don't match, space cache will be invalidated > [4/7] checking fs roots > [5/7] checking only csums items (without verifying data) > [6/7] checking root refs > [7/7] checking quota groups skipped (not enabled on this FS) > found 87799443456 bytes used, no error found > total csum bytes: 84696784 > total tree bytes: 954220544 > total fs tree bytes: 806535168 > total extent tree bytes: 47710208 > btree space waste bytes: 150766636 > file data blocks allocated: 87780622336 > referenced 94255783936 > > The output of btrfs check now on this drive: > > $ sudo btrfs check /dev/mapper/nvme > Opening filesystem to check... > Checking filesystem on /dev/mapper/nvme > UUID: 488f733d-1dfd-4a0f-ab2f-ba690e095fe4 > [1/7] checking root items > [2/7] checking extents > [3/7] checking free space cache > cache and super generation don't match, space cache will be invalidated > [4/7] checking fs roots > [5/7] checking only csums items (without verifying data) > [6/7] checking root refs > [7/7] checking quota groups skipped (not enabled on this FS) > found 87799443456 bytes used, no error found > total csum bytes: 84696784 > total tree bytes: 954220544 > total fs tree bytes: 806535168 > total extent tree bytes: 47710208 > btree space waste bytes: 150766636 > file data blocks allocated: 87780622336 > referenced 94255783936 Just as it said, there is no error found by btrfs-check. If you want to be extra safe, please run `btrfs check` again, using v5.4.1 (which adds an extra check for extent item generation). At this stage, at least v5.3 kernel should be able to mount it, and delete offending files. v5.4 is a little more strict on extent item generation. But if you delete the offending files using v5.3, everything should be fine. If you want to be abosultely safe, you can run `btrfs check --check-data-csum` to do a scrub-like check on data. Thanks, Qu > > How is that looking? I'll boot back into a usb drive to try --repair > --mode=lowmem on the SSD. My continued worry is the spurious file I > can't delete. Is that something btrfs --repair will try to fix or is > there something else that needs to be done? It seems this inode is > tripping things up and I can't find a way to get rid of that file. > > John > > >> >> Thanks, >> Qu >>> ERROR: errors found in extent allocation tree or chunk allocation >>> [3/7] checking free space cache >>> [4/7] checking fs roots >>> [5/7] checking only csums items (without verifying data) >>> [6/7] checking root refs >>> [7/7] checking quota groups skipped (not enabled on this FS) >>> found 87799443456 bytes used, error(s) found >>> total csum bytes: 84696784 >>> total tree bytes: 954220544 >>> total fs tree bytes: 806535168 >>> total extent tree bytes: 47710208 >>> btree space waste bytes: 150766636 >>> file data blocks allocated: 87780622336 >>> referenced 94255783936 >>> >>> If that looks promising... I'm hoping that the ssd we're currently >>> working on will follow suit! I'll await your recommendation for what >>> to do on the previous inquiries for the SSD, and if you have any >>> suggestions for the backref errors on the nvme drive above. >>> >>> Many thanks, >>> John >>> >>> On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 6:51 PM John Hendy <jw.hendy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 5:56 PM Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2020/2/9 上午5:57, John Hendy wrote: >>>>>> On phone due to no OS, so apologies if this is in html mode. Indeed, I >>>>>> can't mount or boot any longer. I get the error: >>>>>> >>>>>> Error (device dm-0) in btrfs_replay_log:2228: errno=-22 unknown (Failed >>>>>> to recover log tree) >>>>>> BTRFS error (device dm-0): open_ctree failed >>>>> >>>>> That can be easily fixed by `btrfs rescue zero-log`. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Whew. This was most helpful and it is wonderful to be booting at >>>> least. I think the outstanding issues are: >>>> - what should I do about `btrfs check --repair seg` faulting? >>>> - how can I deal with this (probably related to seg fault) ghost file >>>> that cannot be deleted? >>>> - I'm not sure if you looked at the post --repair log, but there a ton >>>> of these errors that didn't used to be there: >>>> >>>> backpointer mismatch on [13037375488 20480] >>>> ref mismatch on [13037395968 892928] extent item 0, found 1 >>>> data backref 13037395968 root 263 owner 4257169 offset 0 num_refs 0 >>>> not found in extent tree >>>> incorrect local backref count on 13037395968 root 263 owner 4257169 >>>> offset 0 found 1 wanted 0 back 0x5627f59cadc0 >>>> >>>> Here is the latest btrfs check output after the zero-log operation. >>>> - https://pastebin.com/KWeUnk0y >>>> >>>> I'm hoping once that file is deleted, it's a matter of >>>> --init-csum-tree and perhaps I'm set? Or --init-extent-tree? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> John >>>> >>>>> At least, btrfs check --repair didn't make things worse. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Qu >>>>>> >>>>>> John >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Feb 8, 2020, 1:56 PM John Hendy <jw.hendy@xxxxxxxxx >>>>>> <mailto:jw.hendy@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 <http://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 >>>>>> <mailto: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 >>>>>> <mailto: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 >>>>>> <mailto: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 >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>> >>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
