Return-Path: Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:46527 "EHLO plane.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750921AbbLZKrZ (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Dec 2015 05:47:25 -0500 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1aCmNe-0007pU-E0 for linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 11:47:22 +0100 Received: from ip98-167-165-199.ph.ph.cox.net ([98.167.165.199]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 11:47:22 +0100 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip98-167-165-199.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 26 Dec 2015 11:47:22 +0100 To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: Re: btrfs problems on new file system Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2015 10:47:17 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <16107.1451037790@ccs.covici.com> <18552.1451078098@ccs.covici.com> <5117.1451114951@ccs.covici.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: covici posted on Sat, 26 Dec 2015 02:29:11 -0500 as excerpted: > Chris Murphy wrote: > >> If you can post the entire dmesg somewhere that'd be useful. MUAs tend >> to wrap that text and make it unreadable on list. I think the problems >> with your volume happened before the messages, but it's hard to say. >> Also, a generation of nearly 5000 is not that new? > > The file system was only a few days old. It was on an lvm volume group > which consisted of two ssd drives, so I am not sure what you are saying > about lvm cache -- how could I do anything different? > >> On another thread someone said you probably need to specify the device >> to mount when using Btrfs and lvmcache? And the device to specify is >> the combined HDD+SSD logical device, for lvmcache that's the "cache >> LV", which is the OriginLV + CachePoolLV. If Btrfs decides to mount the >> origin, it can result in corruption. > > See above. I think he mixed up two threads and thought you were running lvm-cache, not just regular lvm, which should be good unless you're exposing lvm snapshots and thus letting btrfs see multiple supposed UUIDs that aren't actually universal. Since btrfs is multi-device and uses the UUID to track which devices belong to it (because they're _supposed_ to be universally unique, it's even in the _name_!), if it sees the same UUID it'll consider it part of the same filesystem, thus potentially causing corruption if it's a snapshot or something that's not actually supposed to be part of the (current) filesystem. -- 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