Re: Honest timeline for btrfsck

[David Summers <btrfs@summers5913.freeserve.co.uk>]

On 18/08/11 21:50, Chris Mason wrote:
> Excerpts from Yalonda Gishtaka's message of 2011-08-17 21:09:37 -0400:
>> Chris Mason<chris.mason<at>  oracle.com>  writes:
>>
>>>
>>> Aside from making sure the kernel code is stable, btrfsck is all I'm
>>> working on right now.  I do expect a release in the next two weeks that
>>> can recover your data (and many others).
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Chris
>>> --
>>
>>
>> Chris,
>>
>> We're all on the edge of our seats.  Can you provide an updated ETA on the
>> release of the first functional btrfsck tool?  No pressure or anything ;)
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I've been working non-stop on this.  Currently fsck has four parts:
>
> 1) mount -o recovery mode.  I've posted smaller forms of these patches
> in the past that bypass log tree replay.  The new versions have code to
> create stub roots for trees that can't be read (like the extent
> allocation tree) and will allow the mount to proceed.
>
> 2) fsck that scans for older roots.  This takes advantage of older
> copies of metadata to look for consistent tree roots on disk.  The
> downside is that it is currently very slow.  I'm trying to speed it up
> by limiting the search to only the metadata block groups and a few other
> tricks.
>
> 3) fsck that fixes the extent allocation tree and the chunk tree.  This
> is where I've been spending most of my time.  The problem is that it
> tends to recover some filesystems and badly break others.  While I'm
> fixing up the corner cases that work poorly, I'm adding an undo log to
> the fsck code so that you can get the FS back into its original state if
> you don't like the result of the fsck.
>
> 4) The rest of the corruptions can be dealt with fairly well from the
> kernel.  I have a series of patches to make the extent allocation tree
> less strict about reference counts and other rules, basically allowing
> the FS to limp along instead of crash.
>
> These four things together are basically my minimal set of features
> required for fedora and our own internal projects at Oracle to start
> treating us as production filesystem.
>
> There are always bugs to fix, and I have #1 and #2 mostly ready.  I had
> hoped to get #1 out the door before I left on vacation and I still might
> post it tonight.
>
> -chris
> --
> 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
>

Just checking my reading on where we are is correct.

1&2 have been done?

Whats the progress on 3&4 - is Chris the only one working on these, or 
are others active?

David.