You are not logged in.
Hi,
I have observed that the kernel produces lots of messages looking like "btrfs: crc mismatch for page 0". I have not the slightest idea what device this message might refer to, nor what it means.
I have made the root file system btrfs, which was, after all, maybe not the wisest choice. After some mysterious crashes I use kernel 3.0.48-1-lts on x86_64.
Any ideas?
Last edited by El Lobo (2012-10-26 14:11:28)
Offline
Why are you using an lts kernel? btrfs is still undergoing very active development, ideally you should be using the latest stable version. Could you try that and see if it solves your problem?
Sakura:-
Mobo: MSI MAG X570S TORPEDO MAX // Processor: AMD Ryzen 9 5950X @4.9GHz // GFX: AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT // RAM: 32GB (4x 8GB) Corsair DDR4 (@ 3000MHz) // Storage: 1x 3TB HDD, 6x 1TB SSD, 2x 120GB SSD, 1x 275GB M2 SSD
Making lemonade from lemons since 2015.
Offline
As far I know the lts have these problem, a boot in 3.6 and the reboot in 3.0 make these problem and a little of writing fixe the problem, and if you reboot again in 3.6 and reboot again in 3.0 the problem again happen
is a know bug in 3.0+btrfs that all dev know and not care bout it because no harm anything
but as far I know crc is related to data/metadata/journal in btrfs...but as far I know noone have any problem about this
Lenovo ThinkPad L420 modified
:: Intel i7 2560QM :: 8 GB RAM :: SSD 256 GB ::
:: DVD read+Writter :: 3 USB 3.0 Expresa Card ::
:: a Favulous 1 mins lasting Io-Li battery ::cry::
Offline
As far I know the lts have these problem, a boot in 3.6 and the reboot in 3.0 make these problem and a little of writing fixe the problem, and if you reboot again in 3.6 and reboot again in 3.0 the problem again happen
is a know bug in 3.0+btrfs that all dev know and not care bout it because no harm anything
but as far I know crc is related to data/metadata/journal in btrfs...but as far I know noone have any problem about this
Thank you.
In real life (i.e. non-beta world) this would make btrfs be tossed away. No way to find out what drive is concerned, no way to fix... ![]()
Offline