Case study: recovery of a corrupted 12 TB multi-device pool

Post by yjftsjthsd-h » Mon, Apr 06, 2026, 7:04 AM UTC

rincebrain wrote: post #5

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #4

> This is not a bug report. [...] The goal is constructive, not a complaint. Er, I appreciate trying to be constructive, but in what possible situation is it not a bug that a power cycle can lose the pool? And if it's not technically a "bug" because BTRFS officially specifies that it can fail like that, why is that not in big bold text at the start of any docs on it? 'Cuz that's kind of a big deal for users to know.…

As far as I can see, no, the author disabled nothing of the sort that he documented. I suspect that the author's intent is less "I do not view this as a bug" and more "I do not think it's useful to get into angry debates over whether something is a bug". I do not know whether this is a common thing on btrfs discussions, but I have certainly seen debates to that effect elsewhere. (My personal favorite remains "it's no…

Post by yjftsjthsd-h » Mon, Apr 06, 2026, 7:28 AM UTC

toaste_ wrote: post #12

stinkbeetle wrote: post #3

> Case study: recovery of a severely corrupted 12 TB multi-device pool, plus constructive gap analysis and reference tool set #1107 Please don't be btrfs please don't be btrfs please don't be btrfs...

I mean, the only other option was bcachefs, which might have been funny if this LLM-generated blogpost were written by the OpenClaw instance the developer has decided is sentient: https://www.reddit.com/r/bcachefs/comments/1rblll1/the_blog_... But no. It was btrfs. As a side note, it's somewhat impressive that an LLM agent was able to produce a suite of custom tools that were apparently successfully used to recover s…

Post by nslsm » Mon, Apr 06, 2026, 7:54 AM UTC

Retr0id wrote: post #7

This is obviously LLM output, but perhaps LLM output that corresponds to a real scenario. It's plausible that Claude was able to autonomously recover a corrupted fs, but I would not trust its "insights" by default. I'd love to see a btrfs dev's take on this!

Post by badgersnake » Mon, Apr 06, 2026, 8:24 AM UTC

praseodym wrote: post #14

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could be ZFS. I'd be much more surprised, but it can still have bugs.

ZFS on Linux has had many bugs over the years, notably with ZFS-native encryption and especially sending/receiving encrypted volumes. Another issue is that using swap on ZFS is still guaranteed to hang the kernel in low memory scenarios, because ZFS needs to allocate memory to write to swap.

Post by weiyong1024 » Mon, Apr 06, 2026, 8:53 AM UTC