Re: Critical error from Tree-checker

[Archange <archange@archlinux.org>]

Le 13/09/2024 à 01:42, Qu Wenruo a écrit :
>
>
> 在 2024/9/12 21:43, Archange 写道:
>> Le 12/09/2024 à 14:23, Qu Wenruo a écrit :
>>> 在 2024/9/12 19:34, Archange 写道:
>>>> Le 12/09/2024 à 14:01, Qu Wenruo a écrit :
>>>>> 在 2024/9/12 19:27, Archange 写道:
>>>>>> […]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [3/7] checking free space tree
>>>>>> there is no free space entry for 0-65536
>>>>>> cache appears valid but isn't 0
>>>>>
>>>>> Then it's totally fine.
>>>>>
>>>>> For the 0-65536 problem, mind to provide the following dump?
>>>>>
>>>>> # btrfs ins dump-tree -t fst <device>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm afraid since the fs is somewhat old, there may be some corner 
>>>>> case
>>>>> btrfs-check is not handling properly.
>>>>
>>>> ERROR: unexpected tree id suffix of 'fst': t
>>>
>>> My bad, it should be "btrfs ins dump-tree -t free-space <device>".
>>
>> The output is too big for an email, so uploaded here:
>>
>> https://paste.xinu.at/XtR8/
>>
>>> And if possible, also "btrfs ins dump-tree -t extent <device>" just 
>>> in case.
>>
>> Same thing (even bigger), also output on the terminal and while 
>> redirecting to a file was quite different (but maybe that’s more 
>> because something changed between the two calls), so here are:
>>
>> – the cli run : https://paste.xinu.at/9vs/
>>
>> – the file run: https://paste.xinu.at/XpzhbZ/
>
> Thanks a lot.
>
> This indeed shows a very old filesystem, and for a long long time, we 
> no longer create any block group at logical bytenr 0, thus it shows an 
> corner case that older fs layout doesn't exclude the first 1MiB.

IIRC this file system was created in 2016.

> And it's indeed a false alert.
>
> In that case, as long as you still have unallocated space, you can 
> just relocate the system chunks:
>
> # btrfs balacne start -s <mnt>
>
> Which should move the system chunks to new locations and will not 
> utilize the first 1MiB reserved space.

# btrfs balance start -s /
ERROR: Refusing to explicitly operate on system chunks.
Pass --force if you really want to do that.

According to https://btrfs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/btrfs-balance.html, 
-s requires -f, so I guess I should continue with that?

Regards,
Archange