On Sat, 14 May 2011 21:10 +0300, "Daniel Shahaf" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 14 May 2011 19:54 +0200, "Steinar Bang" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>>>> Stefan Sperling <[email protected]>:
> >
> > > The script probably took a wrong guess.
> >
> > > Hopefully this is the known corruption problem with a duplicate block of
> > > data in the revision file.
> >
> > > Can you check if the original revision file (i.e. not modified by
> > > fsfsverify.py) somewhere contains a data block which contains data
> > > that matches the data around byte offset 1916?
> >
> > "offset 1916", is that "byte number 1916 in the 683 ref file"?
> > Is that 1916 decimal, or hexadecimal? I'm assuming decimal for now.
> >
>
> Yes.
>
"Yes, it's decimal". Because the node-rev indicated offset 1910 (decimal) and
fsfsverify spoke about offset 1916, which corresponds to '1910 +
strlen("DELTA\n")' (and to the 0x77C offset of the "SVN\1" in your hex dump) so
well that I'm not going to bother check that fsfsverify doesn't print offsets
in hex. :-)
