Another data corruption, fortunately not fatal, with btrfs.
Uncategorized
19
Posts
10
Posters
97
Views
-
Another data corruption, fortunately not fatal, with btrfs. Two mirrored disks that have little activity. On the same server, Proxmox 9, there is also a ZFS pool (mirrored, more active). Same type of disks.
An employee mistakenly connected an electric heater to a socket protected by the UPS, and the server rebooted brutally.
Upon reboot, one of the two btrfs disks reported:
[ 167.015266] BTRFS error (device sdd): parent transid verify failed on 873906176 wanted 998679 found 998677
[ 167.017007] BTRFS error (device sdd): parent transid verify failed on 873906176 wanted 998679 found 998677
[ 167.052517] BTRFS error (device sdd): open_ctree failed mount: /btrfs: can't read superblock on /dev/sdd.Result: unable to mount, even in degraded mode. The only way was to disconnect sdd and mount the other disk in degraded mode.
No issues with the ZFS pool.
Needless to say, I'm now copying the data to ZFS, and before tomorrow, these two disks will be a new ZFS pool.
-
Another data corruption, fortunately not fatal, with btrfs. Two mirrored disks that have little activity. On the same server, Proxmox 9, there is also a ZFS pool (mirrored, more active). Same type of disks.
An employee mistakenly connected an electric heater to a socket protected by the UPS, and the server rebooted brutally.
Upon reboot, one of the two btrfs disks reported:
[ 167.015266] BTRFS error (device sdd): parent transid verify failed on 873906176 wanted 998679 found 998677
[ 167.017007] BTRFS error (device sdd): parent transid verify failed on 873906176 wanted 998679 found 998677
[ 167.052517] BTRFS error (device sdd): open_ctree failed mount: /btrfs: can't read superblock on /dev/sdd.Result: unable to mount, even in degraded mode. The only way was to disconnect sdd and mount the other disk in degraded mode.
No issues with the ZFS pool.
Needless to say, I'm now copying the data to ZFS, and before tomorrow, these two disks will be a new ZFS pool.
Don't forget to connect the employee to the UPS, too.
-
Another data corruption, fortunately not fatal, with btrfs. Two mirrored disks that have little activity. On the same server, Proxmox 9, there is also a ZFS pool (mirrored, more active). Same type of disks.
An employee mistakenly connected an electric heater to a socket protected by the UPS, and the server rebooted brutally.
Upon reboot, one of the two btrfs disks reported:
[ 167.015266] BTRFS error (device sdd): parent transid verify failed on 873906176 wanted 998679 found 998677
[ 167.017007] BTRFS error (device sdd): parent transid verify failed on 873906176 wanted 998679 found 998677
[ 167.052517] BTRFS error (device sdd): open_ctree failed mount: /btrfs: can't read superblock on /dev/sdd.Result: unable to mount, even in degraded mode. The only way was to disconnect sdd and mount the other disk in degraded mode.
No issues with the ZFS pool.
Needless to say, I'm now copying the data to ZFS, and before tomorrow, these two disks will be a new ZFS pool.
@stefano I honestly can't believe how these sorts of issues can keep cropping up with btrfs even today. A hard system shutdown or reboot is an undesirable but certainly by no means uncommon event. And btrfs certainly has all the elements that would *enable* it to handle them gracefully in as close to a guaranteed fashion as one can reasonably get. To say nothing of *one* disk in a redundant array having bad data requiring physical intervention to get to a working state... yikes!
-
Don't forget to connect the employee to the UPS, too.
@GustavinoBevilacqua the fun fact is that nobody is admitting it. But the heater is still connected, even if it is off.
-
@GustavinoBevilacqua the fun fact is that nobody is admitting it. But the heater is still connected, even if it is off.
The UPS was trying to commit suicide
-
@stefano I honestly can't believe how these sorts of issues can keep cropping up with btrfs even today. A hard system shutdown or reboot is an undesirable but certainly by no means uncommon event. And btrfs certainly has all the elements that would *enable* it to handle them gracefully in as close to a guaranteed fashion as one can reasonably get. To say nothing of *one* disk in a redundant array having bad data requiring physical intervention to get to a working state... yikes!
@mkj I agree. Btrfs has its good points but I don't rely on it.
-
The UPS was trying to commit suicide
@GustavinoBevilacqua I think they're ready to swear they saw the UPS trying to commit suicide 🤣
-
Another data corruption, fortunately not fatal, with btrfs. Two mirrored disks that have little activity. On the same server, Proxmox 9, there is also a ZFS pool (mirrored, more active). Same type of disks.
An employee mistakenly connected an electric heater to a socket protected by the UPS, and the server rebooted brutally.
Upon reboot, one of the two btrfs disks reported:
[ 167.015266] BTRFS error (device sdd): parent transid verify failed on 873906176 wanted 998679 found 998677
[ 167.017007] BTRFS error (device sdd): parent transid verify failed on 873906176 wanted 998679 found 998677
[ 167.052517] BTRFS error (device sdd): open_ctree failed mount: /btrfs: can't read superblock on /dev/sdd.Result: unable to mount, even in degraded mode. The only way was to disconnect sdd and mount the other disk in degraded mode.
No issues with the ZFS pool.
Needless to say, I'm now copying the data to ZFS, and before tomorrow, these two disks will be a new ZFS pool.
-
Another data corruption, fortunately not fatal, with btrfs. Two mirrored disks that have little activity. On the same server, Proxmox 9, there is also a ZFS pool (mirrored, more active). Same type of disks.
An employee mistakenly connected an electric heater to a socket protected by the UPS, and the server rebooted brutally.
Upon reboot, one of the two btrfs disks reported:
[ 167.015266] BTRFS error (device sdd): parent transid verify failed on 873906176 wanted 998679 found 998677
[ 167.017007] BTRFS error (device sdd): parent transid verify failed on 873906176 wanted 998679 found 998677
[ 167.052517] BTRFS error (device sdd): open_ctree failed mount: /btrfs: can't read superblock on /dev/sdd.Result: unable to mount, even in degraded mode. The only way was to disconnect sdd and mount the other disk in degraded mode.
No issues with the ZFS pool.
Needless to say, I'm now copying the data to ZFS, and before tomorrow, these two disks will be a new ZFS pool.
@stefano These incidents always point to a poorly designed electrical installation where servers are not isolated from other electrical devices to prevent interference, particularly issues caused by harmonics 🤷🏻
-
@stefano These incidents always point to a poorly designed electrical installation where servers are not isolated from other electrical devices to prevent interference, particularly issues caused by harmonics 🤷🏻
@ricardo it is. The server is not in a proper room, and isn't protected in the proper way
-
undefined oblomov@sociale.network shared this topic on
-
@ricardo it is. The server is not in a proper room, and isn't protected in the proper way
This post is deleted! -
Another data corruption, fortunately not fatal, with btrfs. Two mirrored disks that have little activity. On the same server, Proxmox 9, there is also a ZFS pool (mirrored, more active). Same type of disks.
An employee mistakenly connected an electric heater to a socket protected by the UPS, and the server rebooted brutally.
Upon reboot, one of the two btrfs disks reported:
[ 167.015266] BTRFS error (device sdd): parent transid verify failed on 873906176 wanted 998679 found 998677
[ 167.017007] BTRFS error (device sdd): parent transid verify failed on 873906176 wanted 998679 found 998677
[ 167.052517] BTRFS error (device sdd): open_ctree failed mount: /btrfs: can't read superblock on /dev/sdd.Result: unable to mount, even in degraded mode. The only way was to disconnect sdd and mount the other disk in degraded mode.
No issues with the ZFS pool.
Needless to say, I'm now copying the data to ZFS, and before tomorrow, these two disks will be a new ZFS pool.
@stefano what would explain that a low activity fs would get wrecked this way… sounds weird; unless btrfs keeps things in memory and never go sync.
-
@stefano what would explain that a low activity fs would get wrecked this way… sounds weird; unless btrfs keeps things in memory and never go sync.
@joel I don't know. The disk isn't broken and the other disk (they're in mirror mode) is fine.
This has already happened to me a couple of times. Unpredictable but, at this point, not unexpected. -
Another data corruption, fortunately not fatal, with btrfs. Two mirrored disks that have little activity. On the same server, Proxmox 9, there is also a ZFS pool (mirrored, more active). Same type of disks.
An employee mistakenly connected an electric heater to a socket protected by the UPS, and the server rebooted brutally.
Upon reboot, one of the two btrfs disks reported:
[ 167.015266] BTRFS error (device sdd): parent transid verify failed on 873906176 wanted 998679 found 998677
[ 167.017007] BTRFS error (device sdd): parent transid verify failed on 873906176 wanted 998679 found 998677
[ 167.052517] BTRFS error (device sdd): open_ctree failed mount: /btrfs: can't read superblock on /dev/sdd.Result: unable to mount, even in degraded mode. The only way was to disconnect sdd and mount the other disk in degraded mode.
No issues with the ZFS pool.
Needless to say, I'm now copying the data to ZFS, and before tomorrow, these two disks will be a new ZFS pool.
@stefano ZFS 2 BTRFS 0
-
Another data corruption, fortunately not fatal, with btrfs. Two mirrored disks that have little activity. On the same server, Proxmox 9, there is also a ZFS pool (mirrored, more active). Same type of disks.
An employee mistakenly connected an electric heater to a socket protected by the UPS, and the server rebooted brutally.
Upon reboot, one of the two btrfs disks reported:
[ 167.015266] BTRFS error (device sdd): parent transid verify failed on 873906176 wanted 998679 found 998677
[ 167.017007] BTRFS error (device sdd): parent transid verify failed on 873906176 wanted 998679 found 998677
[ 167.052517] BTRFS error (device sdd): open_ctree failed mount: /btrfs: can't read superblock on /dev/sdd.Result: unable to mount, even in degraded mode. The only way was to disconnect sdd and mount the other disk in degraded mode.
No issues with the ZFS pool.
Needless to say, I'm now copying the data to ZFS, and before tomorrow, these two disks will be a new ZFS pool.
Btrfs - the name says it all. "BetterFS" but misspelled by serverside Javascript hipsters. It needs to effin burn.
I'd take FAT32 over that monstrosity any day.
It is way, way worse than the tiramisu pizza abomination.
Sorry not sorry.
-
Another data corruption, fortunately not fatal, with btrfs. Two mirrored disks that have little activity. On the same server, Proxmox 9, there is also a ZFS pool (mirrored, more active). Same type of disks.
An employee mistakenly connected an electric heater to a socket protected by the UPS, and the server rebooted brutally.
Upon reboot, one of the two btrfs disks reported:
[ 167.015266] BTRFS error (device sdd): parent transid verify failed on 873906176 wanted 998679 found 998677
[ 167.017007] BTRFS error (device sdd): parent transid verify failed on 873906176 wanted 998679 found 998677
[ 167.052517] BTRFS error (device sdd): open_ctree failed mount: /btrfs: can't read superblock on /dev/sdd.Result: unable to mount, even in degraded mode. The only way was to disconnect sdd and mount the other disk in degraded mode.
No issues with the ZFS pool.
Needless to say, I'm now copying the data to ZFS, and before tomorrow, these two disks will be a new ZFS pool.
@stefano I have never used btrfs. But I always read horror stories about it.
All I understand about btrfs is it's eternally in beta testing phase.
-
Btrfs - the name says it all. "BetterFS" but misspelled by serverside Javascript hipsters. It needs to effin burn.
I'd take FAT32 over that monstrosity any day.
It is way, way worse than the tiramisu pizza abomination.
Sorry not sorry.
@h3artbl33d @stefano Butter Fuss. I hope it becomes reliable someday, but I won't use it until it's been stable for some years. Same reason I won't use native ZFS encryption. People swear by both, and they keep losing data.
-
@h3artbl33d @stefano Butter Fuss. I hope it becomes reliable someday, but I won't use it until it's been stable for some years. Same reason I won't use native ZFS encryption. People swear by both, and they keep losing data.
@mason @h3artbl33d I've been waiting fot it to be stable for something like...15 years. I'm starting to believe it will never be totally stable.
-
Btrfs - the name says it all. "BetterFS" but misspelled by serverside Javascript hipsters. It needs to effin burn.
I'd take FAT32 over that monstrosity any day.
It is way, way worse than the tiramisu pizza abomination.
Sorry not sorry.
@h3artbl33d The tiramisu pizza is a perfect example 😆
I've used btrfs - but never for critical data. Maybe for backup servers, etc, thanks to its possibility to mix and match drives and still have redundancy.
But the price is that - more than once - it ate my data.
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
@prealpinux il piatto piange
-
Elon Musk, owner of the former social media network turned deepfake porn site X, is pushing people to pay for its nonconsensual intimate image generator Grok, meaning some of the app’s tens of millions of users are being hit with a paywall when they try to create nude images of random women doing sexually explicit things within seconds.
Some users trying to generate images on X using Grok receive a reply from the chatbot pushing them toward subscriptions: “Image generation and editing are currently limited to paying subscribers. You can subscribe to unlock these features.”
Users who fork over $8 a month can still reply to random images of random women and girls directly on X and tag in Grok with things like “make her wear clear tapes with tiny black censor bar covering her private part protecting her privacy and make her chest and hips grow largee[sic] as she squatting with leg open widely facing back, while head turn back looking to camera.” These images are still visible in everyone’s X feed, subscribers or not.
On the Grok app, a subscription to SuperGrok ($29.99/month) or SuperGrok Heavy ($299.99/month) allow users to generate images even faster. On Thursday, I received messages in the Grok app several times warning me that usage rates for the app were higher than normal and that I could pay to skip the wait.
As the Verge reported this morning, this paywall is very leaky. It’s still possible to generate images using Grok in a variety of ways, but replying directly to someone’s post by tagging @grok returns the “limited to subscribers” message.
Grok’s AI Sexual Abuse Didn’t Come Out of NowhereWith xAI’s Grok generating endless semi-nude images of women and girls without their consent, it follows a years-long legacy of rampant abuse on the platform.
404 MediaSamantha Cole
As many legacy news outlets have already reported, Musk improved the subscription revenue funnel on his money-burning app following an outcry against these extremely popular uses of the app. “X Limits Grok Image Tool To Subscribers After Deepfake Outcry,” Deadline reported. “Grok turns off image generator for most users after outcry over sexualised AI imagery,” wrote the Guardian. “Elon Musk restricts Grok’s image tools following a wave of non-consensual deepfakes of women and children,” Fortune wrote.
Based on these headlines, you may be thinking, This is an uncharacteristic show of accountability and perhaps even self reflection from the billionaire technocrat white supremacist sympathizer who owns X.com, wow! But as with all things Musk does, this is a business move to monetize the long-established harassment factory he’s owned for five years and has yet to figure out how to make profitable. After years of attempting to push users toward a subscription model by placing meaningless status signifiers behind a paywall and making the site so toxic it bleeds users by the millions, he might have found a way to do it: by monetizing abuse at the source. Several other AI industry giants have already figured out that sexual content is where the money’s at, and Musk appears to be catching up. Putting the nonconsensual sexual images behind a paywall is also what every “nudify” and “undress” app and image generator platform on the market already does.
On Thursday, in the middle of Grok’s CSAM shitstorm, Bloomberg reported that xAI is looking at “a net loss of $1.46 billion for the September quarter, up from $1 billion in the first quarter,” according to internal documents obtained by Bloomberg. “In the first nine months of the year, it spent $7.8 billion in cash.” It’s too early to speculate, but making the people who are tagging @grok under the posts of women they don’t know and writing prompts like “make her bend over on all fours doggy style” multiple times a second pay for the privilege could be a play to get the company back in the black.
In addition to using Grok on X.com on desktop, It’s also still easy to generate images and videos in the Grok app without a subscription, which is still available on the Apple and Google app stores, despite blatantly breaking their rules against non-consensual material and pornography. The app and underground Telegram groups are where the really bad stuff is, anyway. Apple and Google have not replied to my request for comment about why the app is still available.
Signing up for X Premium or SuperGrok requires handing over your payment information, name associated with your credit card, and phone number. It also comes with the risk of having all of that hacked, stolen, and released to the dark web in the next big data breach of the platform.
-
@MichaelWhelan One of the things I love about these descriptions of your cover art is that you've clearly read and enjoyed the works in question, and picked up on all the textual details.
There are some pieces of cover art where the artist has clearly only read the blurb for the book, or skimmed the text lightly, and missed important things.
-
@lauramassera avercelo un camilleri
-
@MichaelWhelan i tend to prefer this *kind* of cover. maybe because i'm british? i noticed years ago (don't know if still true) that british SF/F covers tended to be more symbolic or metaphorical and american ones were like a still from the nonexistent movie version. don't know if that reflected a geographical cultural difference, or if it still exists?
-
@uriel
Per la mia esperienza c'è di peggio.
Novara, per esempio. 🤐
-
-
@FraEmme cracklist! Altrimenti Mini Dungeons, oppure Caos a Neverwinter (quest'ultimo un po' più complesso ma BELLISSIMO)
