On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Ryan C. Underwood
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

Unfortunately, I am going to have to give up on btrfs if it
is really so fragile.

However, complaining about the fragility of a still in development
and
marked experimental filesystem would seem disingenuous at best.

[snip paragraphs of tut-tutting]

quoted

IOW, yes, btrfs is to be considered fragile at this point.

So you re-stated my position. =A0I gave btrfs a chance but it is stil=

l

apparently far more fragile than ext4 when corruption is introduced -=

-

although btrfs is the filesystem of the two which is specifically
designed to provide internal fault tolerance and resilience. =A0Is th=

ere

a fine line between "user feedback" and "disingenuous complaining"
that I am not aware of?

The data in question is not that important, though I would like to
have it back considering it should mostly still be there as on the
ext4 volumes. =A040MB of bad sectors on one 2TB disk in a 6TB volume
does not seem like a lot. =A0Even if the whole beginning of the volum=

e

was wiped out surely there is the equivalent of backup superblocks? =A0=

I

can hack if I could just get a clue where to start.

Since you're getting "failed to read /dev/sr0" messages, that might be
an indication there are some newer btrfs-progs tools available.

You might want to try the building btrfs-progs from the git repository:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=3Dlinux/kernel/git/mason/btrfs-progs.git;a=3Ds=
ummary

There are some recovery tools there that may extract your data (look
at the "recover" program).
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" =
in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html