From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-la0-f52.google.com ([209.85.215.52]:62326 "EHLO mail-la0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752812Ab3GAKQm (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Jul 2013 06:16:42 -0400 Received: by mail-la0-f52.google.com with SMTP id fo12so4200295lab.11 for ; Mon, 01 Jul 2013 03:16:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1372673798.3030.2.camel@Waves.darkmere> Subject: Re: raid 10 corruption from single drive failure From: "D. Spindel" To: cwillu Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 12:16:38 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <1372492506.3088.0.camel@Waves.darkmere> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On lör, 2013-06-29 at 03:08 -0600, cwillu wrote: > > Not sure I entirely follow: mounting with -o degraded (not -o > recovery) is how you're supposed to mount if there's a disk missing. What I'm wondering about is why btrfsck segfaults, why it won't claim which drive is supposedly "corrupt" in a data-loss case. In this case the drive was present, at least the first superblock should be readable, but I get these somewhat strange issues. Re-sending as I forgot CC. ( Curse you, evolution ) //D.S.