From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="ZZ8jf5IQ" Received: from mail-ot1-x336.google.com (mail-ot1-x336.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::336]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D4491A6 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2023 22:13:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ot1-x336.google.com with SMTP id 46e09a7af769-6d7fa93afe9so887742a34.2 for ; Fri, 01 Dec 2023 22:13:06 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1701497586; x=1702102386; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Hfc42TsC9WL+rTg3FMz8YdSwg0JL9tHq6g4Th1omdrk=; b=ZZ8jf5IQj5fHta/LG1uqSTofSvSWslnad6T06+iEFT63MCp5/OQqlrCHFoF4QxukWT qujWfKZ/nEh3n/ZSYlLm/lVX+5ppYDDGXzYnmMbCC/GCqNg4mfWHQgGo1rlgwPbuRab/ pYYt0MRQvgY6OOEkyei4hLV0+0gIk5Ej2ut1R22B9e1irzawCyOEhPon8gzIFfzuSc7i g717WWu+nY1Z4ClX2XSb9bmkXiP/AUvvJ2ubUV2hatJR8yOJTeBOf2F8vBUt+3PlLW7M IEkOhM5K7IdTfX7SNpZ+4LirZTPce+DlmbRifng8R6Y41RLxoP9INIhWAUfDLC9s81Av gmow== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1701497586; x=1702102386; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Hfc42TsC9WL+rTg3FMz8YdSwg0JL9tHq6g4Th1omdrk=; b=KfmJzy1d4U2OJRxCcLOPYIVq9pNzszuDd22Ny7gpZSaLbidL17tLIt3xKfhXN/zyLO DC+HeJD3XYu/hEvWN/WJbkdSJRcYCEGeiIVbXLXU37GiPx8pid3ItoowKMiVNdk6yK43 fVlbnNoD1KoPhXDeiUPVAT6lMZCLAyn7Z/r9Pqtg1gxoDDMOj5Lt0NWwfNo50fca3fXk o0bxmW3b0PBIWbCDUDf1JJ/IZRoJ9ExGdbegiwwraBilb2kZXfSAihag8KN7P4MDjSLO 8cfZHeFgxjRqbBNw6HDb7uzNbAQTAzuUa/KrlSJ+3EF7yLIUJhKHctBE7dMaelqk5XWN vN9g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yxj7xklUtZ9uipB3jIo5mPwZ72ErDCeAwphtr2rpG+b3NbKZrgp Jx/5vHfuHZ6BvPEhbkPKgX6kUKZnGNA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGNb7mAEo17ERMIdp47Qpxm4RDhWrf/MulwOdhU+HgCbxDRtZ0+xDZR1RoVFcf2K8u8lC1lMw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:970f:b0:1fa:e05b:3255 with SMTP id n15-20020a056870970f00b001fae05b3255mr852275oaq.38.1701497585568; Fri, 01 Dec 2023 22:13:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPV6:2600:6c56:7d00:582f::64e? ([2600:6c56:7d00:582f::64e]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id na10-20020a0568706c0a00b001fa54ae35e0sm1182945oab.12.2023.12.01.22.13.05 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 01 Dec 2023 22:13:05 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <8dac2b61-0a42-4416-9477-4cecc1b0eb06@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2023 00:13:03 -0600 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: BTRFS corruption after conversion to block group tree Content-Language: en-US To: Qu Wenruo , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org References: <1b32a750-d464-49f1-a288-577ee2fd473e@gmail.com> <3b55e499-791b-4f98-9ca3-0ff0a218c0bf@gmx.com> From: Russell Haley In-Reply-To: <3b55e499-791b-4f98-9ca3-0ff0a218c0bf@gmx.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To be clear, there is no reason to be suspicious of the other disk that was converted to block group tree and has passed a scrub after rebooting? It should be safe to mount that one read-write again? On 12/1/23 22:25, Qu Wenruo wrote:> Just one more question, is there any hibernation/suspension involved in > this particular corruption? > > I have seen exactly such unexplainable writes-from-future cases, which a > lot of them have hibernation/suspension involved. > (Thus personally speaking, I never go hibernation/suspension on my own > devices) Neither of those, but the affected disk *is* set hdparm -B 128 -S 240, which is Advanced Power Management set to the lowest-power value that "doesn't permit spin-down", AND a 20 minute spin-down timeout. It's possible that this contradictory combination causes firmware misbehavior, but this configuration has been in place since late December 2021 and there were no problems for almost 2 years. Unfortunately my notes don't say exactly I combined no-spindown APM with a spindown timeout, but it does for sure result in the drives spinning down after the configured duration of complete idle. Judging by the data I gathered before making that decision, the reason was probably that APM<128 gave different spindown timeouts for my 4 assorted hard drives, and there was no way to discover the mapping of APM levels to timeout durations. Needless to say, I have reverted that configuration and will just live with the extra noise and $20/year. Thanks, Russell Haley