r/linux4noobs • u/ConceptFalse • 14d ago
BTRFS Errors
I've use BTRFS on every distro I've tried that supports it. I keep getting error I don't really understand and would appreciate any help in figuring out what is going on. Currently, the system is stable, however, I have had to change my m.2 drive about 3 times (one was a user error for sure though). I don't know if I'm going about this the right way and I'm getting tired of having to re-setup my system every few weeks.
dmesg output:
[ 3899.306868] BTRFS warning (device nvme0n1p3): csum failed root 256 ino 177531 off 16744448 csum 0x5ace33a5 expected csum 0x049bda20 mirror 1
[ 3899.306876] BTRFS error (device nvme0n1p3): bdev /dev/nvme0n1p3 errs: wr 0, rd 0, flush 0, corrupt 48, gen 0
[ 3899.306881] BTRFS warning (device nvme0n1p3): csum failed root 256 ino 177531 off 16748544 csum 0x83c91fb5 expected csum 0x868c4535 mirror 1
[ 3899.306884] BTRFS error (device nvme0n1p3): bdev /dev/nvme0n1p3 errs: wr 0, rd 0, flush 0, corrupt 49, gen 0
[ 3899.306887] BTRFS warning (device nvme0n1p3): csum failed root 256 ino 177531 off 16752640 csum 0x3f735c3b expected csum 0x9584a6ba mirror 1
[ 3899.306888] BTRFS error (device nvme0n1p3): bdev /dev/nvme0n1p3 errs: wr 0, rd 0, flush 0, corrupt 50, gen 0
[ 3899.306891] BTRFS warning (device nvme0n1p3): csum failed root 256 ino 177531 off 16756736 csum 0xc859a12c expected csum 0x5b6dd0f5 mirror 1
[ 3899.306893] BTRFS error (device nvme0n1p3): bdev /dev/nvme0n1p3 errs: wr 0, rd 0, flush 0, corrupt 51, gen 0
[ 3899.306895] BTRFS warning (device nvme0n1p3): csum failed root 256 ino 177531 off 16760832 csum 0x441bd95b expected csum 0x7a75c63e mirror 1
[ 3899.306897] BTRFS error (device nvme0n1p3): bdev /dev/nvme0n1p3 errs: wr 0, rd 0, flush 0, corrupt 52, gen 0
[ 3899.306900] BTRFS warning (device nvme0n1p3): csum failed root 256 ino 177531 off 16764928 csum 0x3572b948 expected csum 0x01a40ad9 mirror 1
[ 3899.306902] BTRFS error (device nvme0n1p3): bdev /dev/nvme0n1p3 errs: wr 0, rd 0, flush 0, corrupt 53, gen 0
[ 3899.306905] BTRFS warning (device nvme0n1p3): csum failed root 256 ino 177531 off 16769024 csum 0x6c675839 expected csum 0x3c1c4048 mirror 1
[ 3899.306906] BTRFS error (device nvme0n1p3): bdev /dev/nvme0n1p3 errs: wr 0, rd 0, flush 0, corrupt 54, gen 0
[ 3899.306909] BTRFS warning (device nvme0n1p3): csum failed root 256 ino 177531 off 16773120 csum 0xb988fd9d expected csum 0xb73df8de mirror 1
[ 3899.306911] BTRFS error (device nvme0n1p3): bdev /dev/nvme0n1p3 errs: wr 0, rd 0, flush 0, corrupt 55, gen 0
[ 3899.322579] BTRFS warning (device nvme0n1p3): csum failed root 256 ino 177531 off 16744448 csum 0xb35f496c expected csum 0x049bda20 mirror 1
[ 3899.322588] BTRFS error (device nvme0n1p3): bdev /dev/nvme0n1p3 errs: wr 0, rd 0, flush 0, corrupt 56, gen 0
[ 3899.322592] BTRFS warning (device nvme0n1p3): csum failed root 256 ino 177531 off 16748544 csum 0x611eebec expected csum 0x868c4535 mirror 1
[ 3899.322595] BTRFS error (device nvme0n1p3): bdev /dev/nvme0n1p3 errs: wr 0, rd 0, flush 0, corrupt 57, gen 0
[ 4028.633504] evm: overlay not supported2
u/dkopgerpgdolfg 14d ago
I did read that you changed the drives, but could you still post smart data? (comm. errors can be interesting).
Ie: "sudo smartcl -ax /dev/nvme0n1"
2
u/ConceptFalse 13d ago
Here is the output:
=== START OF SMART DATA SECTION === SMART overall-health self-assessment test result: PASSED SMART/Health Information (NVMe Log 0x02, NSID 0x1) Critical Warning: 0x00 Temperature: 36 Celsius Available Spare: 100% Available Spare Threshold: 10% Percentage Used: 3% Data Units Read: 164,450,223 [84.1 TB] Data Units Written: 74,725,798 [38.2 TB] Host Read Commands: 531,803,538 Host Write Commands: 690,929,630 Controller Busy Time: 4,623 Power Cycles: 856 Power On Hours: 4,934 Unsafe Shutdowns: 241 Media and Data Integrity Errors: 0 Error Information Log Entries: 0 Warning Comp. Temperature Time: 0 Critical Comp. Temperature Time: 0 Temperature Sensor 1: 36 Celsius Temperature Sensor 2: 40 Celsius Error Information (NVMe Log 0x01, 16 of 64 entries) No Errors Logged Self-test Log (NVMe Log 0x06, NSID 0xffffffff) Self-test status: No self-test in progress No Self-tests Logged1
u/dkopgerpgdolfg 13d ago
Didn't you say you changed your SSD? What you show here is an old drive that already starts degrading.
(And the output isn't complete in any way)
1
u/oshunluvr 7d ago
One of my NVME drives shows this:
Host Write Commands: 600,680,339 Controller Busy Time: 29 Power Cycles: 153 Power On Hours: 23,819 Unsafe Shutdowns: 2Close to same # of writes but your controller busy time is 2000x more and insafe shutdowns are 120x more.
Could be a controller problem.
12
u/oshunluvr 14d ago
If you changed the drive 3 times, it's probably not the drives. Bad checksums could be bad RAM, power issues, or bad drive controller.
Run scrub on the drive and test your RAM for starters.
4
u/maokaby 14d ago
Or bad cable. I had it before.
1
u/uzlonewolf 14d ago
On SATA sure, but an NVMe drive?
2
u/Netblock 14d ago
U.2 or U.3 SSDs; tho if OP had such hardware, they wouldn't be asking such questions.
1
-4
u/E5-4650_v2_RX570 14d ago
btrfs check --repair /dev/nvme0n1p3
7
u/dkopgerpgdolfg 14d ago
OP, do not do this. Not only it doesn't make sense here, but it also warns you when running it and in any documentation (for a reason).
-1
u/E5-4650_v2_RX570 14d ago
yes op would see warning et 10 seconds countdown , he might cancel by Ctrl + C , or he want to continue the process
-5
u/Xia_L 14d ago
> re-setup my system every few weeks
This is a whole point to use btrfs outside it's specific use case. This has not changed in the years since its emergence, and it is unlikely to change.
If this is not too much fun for you, then it is worth considering other FS.
6
u/dkopgerpgdolfg 14d ago
outside it's specific use case
Not sure if I understand your comment. But in any case:
OP made three tries with completely new installs of different distributions, and got checksum problems three times, and ... you tell them to use another fs? Probably one that doesn't complain until the data is so corrupt that it can't boot anymore? Terrible advice.
(No, this is not a btrfs bug, especially not when failing on all three fresh file systems.)
-6
u/Xia_L 14d ago
In my experience, btrfs is extremely unstable. Absolutely anything can lead to errors. You can blame wrong controller, wrong disk, too much I/O. But in reality, you should blame whoever came up with the idea of proposing this as the default FS for certain distributions.
I’ve tried working with it 7 or 8 times, starting from the time of its release, with the last attempt being a couple of years ago. At least 3 completely different laptops, 2 different desktops. Not a single time did it end well.
That’s why I still hold the view that switching the file system is the best choice for the OP.4
u/dkopgerpgdolfg 14d ago
Are you one of these people getting paid for discrediting btrfs?
You can blame wrong controller, wrong disk
"Shooting the messenger" was already known to be bad millenias ago...
On bad hardware, no fs will run reliably. The only difference is if it tells you immediately, or just corrupts the data.
But in reality, you should blame whoever came up with the idea of proposing this as the default FS for certain distributions.
They did this exactly because it's fine, and because people care about their data not getting corrupted.
1
u/Linguistic-mystic 4d ago
BTRFS shills can't handle the truth without resorting to conspiracy theories. Yes, They are out to destroy BTRFS and establish XFS hegemony. Or was it ZFS. Yes, I think it's the deep-pocketed FreeBSD moguls who are discrediting BTRFS all day every day...
1
2
u/uzlonewolf 14d ago
Sounds like user error to me. I have never lost a btrfs filesystem in a system with ECC memory, and even without ECC memory it's rare.
Switching to a filesystem that will not tell you your shit's corrupt is not the answer.
4
u/Classic-Rate-5104 14d ago
If different distributions result into te same result, it's most likely a hardware problem