Justin Georgeson wrote on Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 10:03:21 -0500: > Regarding reproducibility, that's what I was going for with #3. I found > another thread, http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2009-06/0723.shtml, > concluding this error is due to fsfsverify not being current with the latest > format, so I'll give the svndump to new repo and redo revision in new repo a > try. >
The script doesn't check the format of the fsfs filesystem it's opening. Oops. Which fsfs formats/features does fsfsverify.py not support? (is that documented somewhere? I couldn't find docs about this in the script itself.) > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel Shahaf [mailto:d...@daniel.shahaf.name] > Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 9:30 AM > To: Justin Georgeson > Cc: users@subversion.apache.org > Subject: Re: corrupt revision, "Reading one svndiff window read beyond the > end of the representation" > > Justin Georgeson wrote on Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 17:39:49 -0500: > > I have a repo with >39k revisions. Last week, r39245 was committed, a merge > > of a single file from trunk to branch. It is the HEAD revision of that file > > on that branch. Turns out this revision is corrupt > > > > [svnad...@hourdcm3 ~]$ svnadmin verify -r 39245 /repos/prowess > > svnadmin: Reading one svndiff window read beyond the end of the > > representation > > > > Is this reproducible? i.e., if you re-commit r39245 (on top of, say, an > svnsync/backup repository at r39244), does it become corrupted again? > > > I've searched from r30000 to HEAD in this repo and that's the only rev that > > fails the verify. All our backup copies have the same issue too. I'm > > wondering what our options for recovery are. Some suggestions we have come > > up with internally are: > > > > 1. Developer still has sandbox which reports the parent folder as updated, > > so have him 'svn cat' the previous version and commit that, then re-commit > > the changes from the corrupt revision > > 2. 'svn rm' the file from the server and re-add it (losing ancestry) > > 3. Some combination of svndump up to that revision, import to new repo, > > redo that merge in new repo, overwrite the revision file with new one > > 4. delete revision file (seems like bad idea) > > 5. svn dump up to corrupt revision and everything after bad revision, merge > > dumps, create new repo, redo merge > > > > Don't do #4. > > #5 sounds reasonable. You have to restitch history in some way now. > > > Is there something else we missed? Which of these seems like the > > safest/easiest? > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > This e-mail, including any attached files, may contain confidential and > > privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any > > review, use, distribution, or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. > > If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive information > > for the intended recipient), please contact the sender by reply e-mail and > > delete all copies of this message.
