• [6.10.0-rc5] Unable to create cache-pool with more than one device, or to mount existing ones


    foux
    • Urgent

    Hi there! I switched from rc-4 to rc-5, and I'm having an issue with multi-cache pool.

     

    On RC-5, every multi-device cache pools, be it new or exsiting, show this error, either on array start or after formatting the drives

    Unmountable: Invalid pool config

     

    Attached is my diagnostic. Thanks!

    vili-diagnostics-20220501-1210.zip




    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    This is a known issue, it occurs if you have just one btrfs formatted array device, it results in an invalid btrfs filesystem on parity which confuses the pools:
     

    May  1 10:50:32 Vili kernel: md: import disk0: (sdq) WDC_WD140EDGZ-11B1PA0_Y6GWSR1C size: 13672382412
    ...
    May  1 10:51:00 Vili emhttpd: /mnt/ssd_pool ERROR: cannot scan /dev/sdq1: Input/output error

     

    I already brought this to LT's attention and hopefully something will be done about it soon, solution for now is to either convert disk1 to xfs like the remaining arrays devices or add/convert more array devices to btrfs.

    • Thanks 1
    Link to comment

    Thanks a lot @JorgeB! I need this one as btrfs as I'm using it for snapshots, so I guess I'll convert another one to it. Thanks!

    Link to comment
    6 minutes ago, limetech said:

    Another workaround is to use 'btrfs-encrypted' file system.

    Thanks for your answer. It’s unfortunately the same issue formatting the multi-drive pool as btrfs-encrypted

    Link to comment
    26 minutes ago, foux said:

    did it again with a second btrfs drive in the array, and same issue.

    Did you reboot after creating the 2nd device? I forgot to mention that.

    Link to comment

    I indeed didn’t, silly me! Will do it later today and report back. Thanks again for your help

    Link to comment
    14 minutes ago, foux said:

    It’s unfortunately the same issue formatting the multi-drive pool as btrfs-encrypted

    It's the array device that would need to be btrfs encrypted, this way it wouldn't interfere with parity at btrfs scan during boot.

    Link to comment

    Two unencrypted btrfs disks did it after a reboot. Thanks you both for your help.

     

    Should I leave the issue as opened, as it's not really solved (that I can thing of, even if there's an alternate solution) ?

    Link to comment
    6 minutes ago, foux said:

    Two unencrypted btrfs disks did it after a reboot. Thanks you both for your help.

    On second though rebooting probably wasn't needed, and it usually works with 2 unencrypted array devices, maybe not in this case, but it's working now and that's what's important.

     

    7 minutes ago, foux said:

    Should I leave the issue as opened

    I leave it to Tom to decide, I believe it's already being tracked internally, at least it's the info I have.

    • Upvote 1
    Link to comment


    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Status Definitions

     

    Open = Under consideration.

     

    Solved = The issue has been resolved.

     

    Solved version = The issue has been resolved in the indicated release version.

     

    Closed = Feedback or opinion better posted on our forum for discussion. Also for reports we cannot reproduce or need more information. In this case just add a comment and we will review it again.

     

    Retest = Please retest in latest release.


    Priority Definitions

     

    Minor = Something not working correctly.

     

    Urgent = Server crash, data loss, or other showstopper.

     

    Annoyance = Doesn't affect functionality but should be fixed.

     

    Other = Announcement or other non-issue.