Re: One missing device = fs not detected; upgrade things first?

Remi Gauvin
2024-01-29T18:24:13Z

On 2024-01-29 12:46 p.m., Andy Smith wrote:
>
> Here's lsblk:
>
> # lsblk
> NAME MAJ:MIN RM SIZE RO TYPE MOUNTPOINT
> sde 8:64 0 931.5G 0 disk
> sdf 8:80 0 1.8T 0 disk
> sdg 8:96 0 1.8T 0 disk
> sdh 8:112 0 931.5G 0 disk
> sdi 8:128 0 1.8T 0 disk
> sdj 8:144 0 2.7T 0 disk
>
>
> The btrfs fs is directly on those drives so it is expected that
> lsblk shows no partitions, but it is not expected that it doesn't
> show an fs.

That is what lsblk output looks like to me.  There is no filesystem
information in the output.  Are you confusing lsblk and blkid?

> Should I build new btrfs-progs and then a new kernel and just boot
> with those to see what happens, and then try the check --repair? Or
> should I just build the new kernel and see what that makes of the
> devices first, then build new btrfs-tools if I am still to run
> check?

I would suggest the output of btrfs filesystem show, as well as the
exact mount command and any dmesg output when mount command is run.