* scrub problem
@ 2015-02-20 19:59 Johan Kröckel
2015-02-20 21:03 ` Bob Williams
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Johan Kröckel @ 2015-02-20 19:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-btrfs
The scrub is neither cancelable not stoppable. What is the problem?
[root@host ]# btrfs scrub status ./
scrub status for XXXXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXXXXXXXX
scrub started at Thu Feb 19 12:41:22 2015, running for 16964 seconds
total bytes scrubbed: 1.56TiB with 0 errors
[root@host ]# btrfs scrub cancel ./
ERROR: scrub cancel failed on ./: not running
[root@host ]# btrfs scrub start ./
ERROR: scrub is already running.
To cancel use 'btrfs scrub cancel ./'.
To see the status use 'btrfs scrub status [-d] ./'.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: scrub problem
2015-02-20 19:59 scrub problem Johan Kröckel
@ 2015-02-20 21:03 ` Bob Williams
2015-02-22 18:26 ` Robert White
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Bob Williams @ 2015-02-20 21:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-btrfs
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 20/02/15 19:59, Johan Kröckel wrote:
> The scrub is neither cancelable not stoppable. What is the
> problem?
>
> [root@host ]# btrfs scrub status ./ scrub status for
> XXXXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXXXXXXXX scrub started at Thu Feb 19
> 12:41:22 2015, running for 16964 seconds total bytes scrubbed:
> 1.56TiB with 0 errors [root@host ]# btrfs scrub cancel ./ ERROR:
> scrub cancel failed on ./: not running [root@host ]# btrfs scrub
> start ./ ERROR: scrub is already running. To cancel use 'btrfs
> scrub cancel ./'. To see the status use 'btrfs scrub status [-d]
> ./'. --
If the local state file used to track scrub history has become
desynchronized, fix it by editing the file
/var/lib/btrfs/scrub.status.0b07b829-9a0e-44ab-89ee-14b36a45199e
(the last bit of the filename is the filesystem uuid)
Look for a line that ends with "finished:0" and change it to say
"finished:1"
Bob
- --
Bob Williams
System: Linux 3.16.7-7-desktop
Distro: openSUSE 13.2 (x86_64) with KDE Development Platform: 4.14.3
Uptime: 06:00am up 7:55, 3 users, load average: 0.16, 0.05, 0.06
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
iEYEARECAAYFAlTnoSUACgkQ0Sr7eZJrmU75sQCcDTJvEufEFVaO8hgHp5SC81Lr
DUwAn2rKiCiyu7k0/6svdfhmlbFpn12B
=/2xH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: scrub problem
@ 2015-02-20 22:46 Calvin Walton
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Calvin Walton @ 2015-02-20 22:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Johan Kröckel; +Cc: linux-btrfs
On Fri, 2015-02-20 at 20:59 +0100, Johan Kröckel wrote:
> The scrub is neither cancelable not stoppable. What is the problem?
>
> [ root@host]# btrfs scrub status ./
> scrub status for XXXXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-XXXXXXXXXX
> scrub started at Thu Feb 19 12:41:22 2015, running for 16964 seconds
> total bytes scrubbed: 1.56TiB with 0 errors
> [ root@host]# btrfs scrub cancel ./
> ERROR: scrub cancel failed on ./: not running
> [ root@host]# btrfs scrub start ./
> ERROR: scrub is already running.
> To cancel use 'btrfs scrub cancel ./'.
> To see the status use 'btrfs scrub status [-d] ./'.
You don't say here which version of btrfs-progs you are using...
As Bob said, this issue is caused by a desynchronization between the
state file on the drive and the kernel state. However, code was added
to btrfs-progs 3.17 to detect and correct this condition.
I'd suggest updating your btrfs-progs.
--
Calvin Walton <calvin.walton@kepstin.ca>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: scrub problem
2015-02-20 21:03 ` Bob Williams
@ 2015-02-22 18:26 ` Robert White
2015-02-24 2:11 ` Anand Jain
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Robert White @ 2015-02-22 18:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bob Williams, linux-btrfs
On 02/20/2015 01:03 PM, Bob Williams wrote:
> /var/lib/btrfs/scrub.status.0b07b829-9a0e-44ab-89ee-14b36a45199e
>
> (the last bit of the filename is the filesystem uuid)
>
> Look for a line that ends with "finished:0" and change it to say
> "finished:1"
Why does this data item even exist? The filesystem/kernel should know
whether a scrub is ongoing. Isn't is universally cheaper to do the
single IOCTL to ask the kernel whether a scrub is ongoing compared to
the open-and-parse of this file?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: scrub problem
2015-02-22 18:26 ` Robert White
@ 2015-02-24 2:11 ` Anand Jain
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Anand Jain @ 2015-02-24 2:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert White, Bob Williams, linux-btrfs
On 02/23/2015 02:26 AM, Robert White wrote:
> On 02/20/2015 01:03 PM, Bob Williams wrote:
>> /var/lib/btrfs/scrub.status.0b07b829-9a0e-44ab-89ee-14b36a45199e
>>
>> (the last bit of the filename is the filesystem uuid)
>>
>> Look for a line that ends with "finished:0" and change it to say
>> "finished:1"
>
> Why does this data item even exist? The filesystem/kernel should know
> whether a scrub is ongoing. Isn't is universally cheaper to do the
> single IOCTL to ask the kernel whether a scrub is ongoing compared to
> the open-and-parse of this file?
good point. I wished btrfs activities/status are host independent. It
helps in SAN configs.
-Anand
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-02-24 2:11 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2015-02-20 19:59 scrub problem Johan Kröckel
2015-02-20 21:03 ` Bob Williams
2015-02-22 18:26 ` Robert White
2015-02-24 2:11 ` Anand Jain
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-02-20 22:46 Calvin Walton
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).