Re: Is there a more aggressive fixer than btrfsck?

[Sean Bartell <wingedtachikoma@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 07:29:56PM -0700, ulmo@sonic.net wrote:
> Is there a more aggressive filesystem restorer than btrfsck?  It simply
> gives up immediately with the following error:
> 
> btrfsck: disk-io.c:739: open_ctree_fd: Assertion `!(!tree_root->node)'
> failed.

btrfsck currently only checks whether a filesystem is consistent. It
doesn't try to perform any recovery or error correction at all, so it's
mostly useful to developers. Any error handling occurs while the
filesystem is mounted.

> Yet, the filesystem has plenty of data on it, and the discs are good and I
> didn't do anything to the data except regular btrfs commands and normal
> mounting.  That's a wildly unreliable filesystem.

btrfs is under heavy development, so make sure you're using the latest
git versions of the kernel module and tools.

> BTW, is there a way to improve delete and copy performance of btrfs?  I'm
> getting about 50KB/s-500KB/s (per size of file being deleted) in deleting
> and/or copying files on a disc that usually can go about 80MB/s.  I think
> it's because they were fragmented.  That implies btrfs is too accepting of
> writing data in fragmented style when it doesn't have to.  Almost all the
> files on my btrfs partitions are around a gig, or 20 gigs, or a third of a
> gig, or stuff like that.  The filesystem is 1.1TB.
> 
> Brad