From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:42948 "EHLO plane.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753982Ab3KMMxW (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Nov 2013 07:53:22 -0500 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VgZwf-0007DJ-Jg for linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 13:53:21 +0100 Received: from ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.231.22.224]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 13:53:21 +0100 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 13:53:21 +0100 To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: Re: Error from Trying to Mount Btrfs Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:52:56 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <1382915825.53433.YahooMailNeo@web125705.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: gatlin sullivan posted on Sun, 27 Oct 2013 16:17:05 -0700 as excerpted: > I have the attached error from trying to mount btrfs on external hard > drive. The F.S. was my primary system, then I dd'd it to an external and > reinstalled Fedora. > > > I tried to follow > https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/ Problem_FAQ#Filesystem_can.27t_be_mounted_by_label. > I used "# btrfs device scan --all-devices" before attempting to mount. > > > What should I do? > > Appreciatively, Gatlin. > > P.S. > This file system is very important to me becasue it has a large > collection of songs. Commenting on that P.S.: Of course if you've read the wiki you know this, but it's worth repeating for others who may come across this in their googles, etc... As noted both on the wiki and in description for the kernel's btrfs option itself, btrfs remains classified as an experimental filesystem, suitable only for testing with data that you don't care about losing, either because it's well backed up to tested usable backups (preferably on something more stable than btrfs), or because it's low-value data you don't particularly care about losing if the test goes wrong and btrfs eats your data for breakfast in the first place. IOW, importance is relative, and relative to the value of the time it would have taken to research the filesystem and ensure backups appropriate to the importance of the data, if you didn't do that research and have those backups, by definition your time saved in skipping that was more important to you than the potential loss of that data on what you would have known if you /really/ cared about the data you put on it, was an experimental filesystem unfit to the purpose you evidently used it for. So you saved the time on the research and backups because you considered that more important than the data, and are now paying the tradeoff cost for that time saved with the potential loss of the obviously relatively unimportant data. No big deal, since self-evidently that time was more important to you than the data you were risking by not spending it. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman