Stefan Sperling wrote on Wed, May 18, 2011 at 12:12:48 +0200: > On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:53:13AM +0200, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > What came out of this thread? Is this one of the known corruption kinds? > > It doesn't seem to be known. > It could be a flipped bits on the hard drive for all we know. > > > Is this is a case of a data block being written partially in one place > > and fully in another, or a case of a corrupt or truncated data block? > > Steinar shared the bad revision file privately. > Philip Martin and myself spent a few hours at the Apache Retreat looking > at the file but we got nowhere. > > There doesn't seem to be a duplicated block. The revision file itself seems > to be fine, expect that one of the lengths of the bad rev doesn't seem to
Huh? Are you referring to the two 'length' attributes in the text: and data: attributes of a node-revision? In what way is it wrong? > make sense. The bad representation we extracted from the file fails to > decompress with zlib (which is what fsfsverify reported). > > We could get the revision to verify fine by referring the node revision > to a different representation but that is cheating and might break > subseuent revs. > > Steinar, I'm sorry we can't help quickly here. At the moment I have no time > to look at this further. I hope you have a good backup you can restore from.
