Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: Error-Fixing Btrfs FSCK Tool Is Imminent

  1. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    How the heck do you know you don't have a problem since there's no fsck for it? Are you psychic?
    A fsck that is capable of reporting errors has existed for a long time already. So he doesn't have to be a psychic. Having said that. Fedora is unlikely to default to Btrfs for the next release until all the important issues besides fsck is resolved

    https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=689509

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    57

    Default

    Likewise, Ubuntu can not use it be default until either dpkg doesn't fsync (danger!), or btrfs fsync doesn't completely suck (and it still really sucks). This poor fsync performance also makes it unsuitable for a whole lot of workloads.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Torrington, Ct. USA
    Posts
    157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chris200x9 View Post
    What's the big deal about fsck? I've had a power loss corrupt ext4 beyond fsck repair, never had a problem with btrfs.
    The big deal is that fsck is a contingency plan. With a fsck tool (capable of repairing issues not just reporting them) you at least have a chance of fixing things if something gets corrupted. Not having a fsck tool is like driving around in your car without a spare tire, a jack, or a cell phone. Everything is fine as long as you don't get a flat.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Dhaka,Bangladesh
    Posts
    102

    Default Error in btrfs

    I have errors in my btrfs home partition. And some times the when some application is trying to read big files from my home directory, it took much much more time then from even ntfs/fat drives. Don't know if that for the errors. Anyway a fsck with error correcting capabilities is required.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    51

    Arrow ZFS already does not need offline fsck for many years...

    ZFS has all that Btrfs yet needs to be developed and it is in use for years.

    Since recently, you can also run Linux on ZFS using ZFSOnLinux implementation, besides Zfs-Fuse , Solaris, Openindiana (Illumos) , SmartOS , Nexenta and FreeBSD.

    Why would I wait for fsck?
    ZFS has disk scrub and it can do disk check while server is in production.

    I think that even on desktop I am angry to fsck stopping me to log into my machine every once in a while, when Ubuntu wants do to pre-boot fsck of my ext4 system disk... While I am waiting and asking myself, when I will install my Ubuntu on ZFS and avoid this..

    I suppose since Btrfs is still in heavy development, fsck is needed for some serious crashes during development but
    I was thinking Btfrs would be more like ZFS in a manner of robustness.

    Oracle also has ZFS in it's portfolio, all it needs it to dual-license ZFS to GPL, besides CDDL and implement it isn Linux kernel.
    Oh, sorry, ZFS is already done ported to Linux, with ZfsOnLinux via Solaris porting layer and ZFS tend to control "everything", so you do not need Linux facilities to manage your disks with all Raid Levels, actuallly..
    Last edited by Markore; 01-25-2012 at 01:54 PM. Reason: typo

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2

    Default btrfs is unstable and fsck is not working

    Current implementation of btrfs completely unstable. It even does not need power outage to make system unrecoverable.
    Yesterday we setup wget downloading from 10 different sources. in the result system gave kernel panic. We can not mount it now at all and current fsck gave following message.

    ~$ sudo btrfsck /dev/vdc
    [sudo] password for biouml:
    parent transid verify failed on 20971520 wanted 1347 found 3121
    parent transid verify failed on 20971520 wanted 1347 found 3121
    parent transid verify failed on 20971520 wanted 1347 found 3121
    parent transid verify failed on 20971520 wanted 1347 found 3121
    Ignoring transid failure
    parent transid verify failed on 29470720 wanted 1357 found 3231
    parent transid verify failed on 29470720 wanted 1357 found 3231
    parent transid verify failed on 29470720 wanted 1357 found 3231
    parent transid verify failed on 29470720 wanted 1357 found 3231
    Ignoring transid failure
    parent transid verify failed on 29470720 wanted 1357 found 3231
    Ignoring transid failure
    parent transid verify failed on 29487104 wanted 1357 found 3235
    parent transid verify failed on 29487104 wanted 1357 found 3235
    parent transid verify failed on 29487104 wanted 1357 found 3235
    parent transid verify failed on 29487104 wanted 1357 found 3235
    Ignoring transid failure
    leaf 29487104 items 1 free space 3454 generation 3235 owner 7
    fs uuid c5ce4702-2dbf-4b57-8067-bd6129fc124b
    chunk uuid 0ffa84fe-33a3-4b8e-95a4-de5f93e88163
    item 0 key (EXTENT_CSUM EXTENT_CSUM 64343257088) itemoff 3479 itemsize 516
    extent csum item
    failed to find block number 150802432

    With ext4 I have never had problems during regular multithreaded IO, but btrfs cannot handle even this.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •