From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>
To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: btrfs send kernel error btrfs_compare_tree
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 13:55:12 +0000 (UTC) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <pan$c437$d4e1a698$ae626ce6$8ef08785@cox.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 531B7F04.30908@travislists.com
Travis Cross posted on Sat, 08 Mar 2014 20:35:16 +0000 as excerpted:
> The filesystem here was likely created with Linux 3.2 and hasn't seen
> much use for awhile, until today I mounted it to try to btrfs send off
> those volumes.
>
> xaba noted this could be the result of some 3.2-era kernel bug. He
> recognized the messages I was seeing. If this is the case, and this
> sort of thing is common, it seems we might want to have a way of
> detecting this and trying to salvage the situation (particularly as
> Debian wheezy -- the last Debian stable release -- is on a 3.2 kernel).
Well, until 3.13 (IIRC) btrfs was officially experimental, with a very
strongly worded warning on the kernel option activating it. And even
after that semi-stabilization (the wording still doesn't suggest fully
stable) current wiki and mkfs.btrfs strongly encourage keeping current on
your kernel if you're running btrfs, something kernel 3.2 definitely is
*NOT*.
So I'd consider backing up the data and doing a clean mkfs.btrfs on the
filesystem, starting over with a filesystem created with a post-eat-your-
babies-warning kernel. I did that here recently, taking advantage of
several of the newer btrfs disk-format features, and plan to do it again
at least once more after a few more kernel cycles of code settling, just
to be sure I'm not relying on something written by potentially still
buggy and not yet entirely stable btrfs code.
Tho I expect the devs will try to salvage this specific situation and
have a bug-fix for it. But I know at least personally, I rest better
knowing that none of my btrfs has been touched by that officially still
very experimental code; they've all been redone with a newer kernel
beyond that warning and haven't run anything older, and as I said, I plan
to redo them again at least once more, as btrfs settles down further.
--
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-03-09 13:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-03-08 18:40 btrfs send kernel error btrfs_compare_tree Travis Cross
2014-03-08 20:35 ` Travis Cross
2014-03-09 13:55 ` Duncan [this message]
2014-03-09 4:26 ` Chris Samuel
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='pan$c437$d4e1a698$ae626ce6$8ef08785@cox.net' \
--to=1i5t5.duncan@cox.net \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox