Re: btrfsck: doesn't correct errors

[Adrian von Bidder <avbidder@fortytwo.ch>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1838 bytes --]

Thanks for taking the time to answer.

(And what I didn't say: as a pure user, for desktop and for the backup 
appliance mentioned, I'm using btrfs so far without any problems.  I'm not 
hard on it on purpose, but stuff like failed wake-up after suspend to ram 
does happen occasionally on the laptop.)

cheers
-- vbi

On Thursday 27 May 2010 20.15:53 Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 06:46:04PM +0200, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> > Heyho!
> > 
> > (This is using btrfs from Debian's 2.6.32	2.6.32-3-kirkwood kernel (-9
> > package; btrfs tools is v0.19-16-g075587c)
> > 
> > A few observations about btrfsck:
> > 
> > a btrfsck run on a 2T volume (4 disks) on a QNAP appliance (512M ram)
> > got killed by Mr. OOM Killer.  Initially, I was quite surprised.  I'm
> > only moderately surprised now since it might well be that I forgot to
> > enable swap.
> 
> Yes, btrfsck keeps the entire extent tree in memory, so the bigger the
> fs, the more RAM it's going to use.
> 
> > A btrfsck run (on a remote machine this time, with nbd) showed quite a
> > few errors like:
> > root 268 inode 34001 errors 2000
> > root 268 inode 34002 errors 2000
> > root 268 inode 34074 errors 2000
> > root 268 inode 34102 errors 2000
> > root 268 inode 34103 errors 2000
> > root 268 inode 34104 errors 2000
> > root 268 inode 34132 errors 2000
> > root 268 inode 34133 errors 2000
> > 
> > 2nd observation: am I supposed to know what this means?
> 
> No not really, atm it's just for us developers.
> 
> > And 3rd observation: btrfsck apparently doesn't correct this kind of
> > error. Running btrfsck again still shows the error.
> 
> Yeah btrfsck doesn't fix problems yet.  Thats being worked on.  Thanks,
> 
> Josef

-- 
Wenn Windows 98 die Antwort ist, wie blöd ist dann die Frage gewesen?

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 389 bytes --]