From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED519C388F7 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 23:08:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A103020A8B for ; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 23:08:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726504AbgKLXId (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Nov 2020 18:08:33 -0500 Received: from static.214.254.202.116.clients.your-server.de ([116.202.254.214]:55970 "EHLO ciao.gmane.io" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725929AbgKLXId (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Nov 2020 18:08:33 -0500 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.io with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kdLhf-0009s8-JP for linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 00:08:31 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org From: Jean-Denis Girard Subject: Re: ERROR: could not setup extent tree Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2020 13:08:25 -1000 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.4.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: fr Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Le 12/11/2020 à 12:55, Chris Murphy a écrit : > Hypothesis: The NVMe drive has had some kind of failure, and since > this single NVMe is used as cache for both HDDs, in effect this > thwarts the raid1 protection of Btrfs. i.e. you don't have complete > hardware isolation by having dedicated SSD's to use as cache for each > HDD. Something went wrong, and it's adversely affected the writes to > both drives. Btrfs is reporting write errors for both bcache0 and > bcache1 at the same time. ok, it makes sense, so I made a mistake with this setup... > I don't know for sure what the next step is, so my strong advice is to > make no changes until the problem and path forward is well understood. > The more things are changed at this point, the greater the likelihood > of non-recovery. Importantly, I'd say whatever you do should be > reversible, until you get superior advice. I restored from backups on a different HDD, so the original setup has not been touched. > You might consider reposting or cross-posting on the bcache list and > see if they have some advice for recovery, or maybe it's safer to just > decouple bcache, and once the HDDs are freed to see if Btrfs can > recover on its own. Good idea, I'll also post on bcache list. Thanks for your reply Chris! Best regards, -- Jean-Denis Girard SysNux Systèmes Linux en Polynésie française https://www.sysnux.pf/ Tél: +689 40.50.10.40 / GSM: +689 87.797.527