On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 6:48 AM, Stefan Sperling <s...@elego.de> wrote: [snip] > Just a possibly related note: > > I've been investigating broken FSFS revisions at a customer site, > which fsfsverify.py was able to fix. fsfsverify.py reported > "InvalidCompressedStream" and/or "InvalidWindow" errors. > I haven't found the time yet to fully dig into the problem to figure out > what really happened. I do have the corrupt and fixed revision files for > analysis and will try to pin-point the problem based on them.
I think that's the repeated block issue. When the problem occurs with a compressed stream, it gets a little more interesting... but it's usually recoverable. > Given what I know about the scenario at the customer site, there seems to > be a correlation between revprop edits and corruption of revisions, > even of revisions unrelated to the revisions which received the revprop > edits (though I'm not sure yet if that's really the case). Julian Foad > says he's seen similar issues also possibly related to revprop edits, > but it's unclear whether we're seeing the same problem. I've seen several cases where propedits have gone bad and you end up with an empty file. I haven't seen much in the way of corruption on that front though (no weird looking bytes, or a malformed file... other than it being empty). Perhaps there is a correlation between editing properties and causing a subsequent problem in a revision. I haven't personally seen that trend though. OTOH, a great deal of people come to me for help, but are unwilling to share many details. :-( > I do think there could be a long-standing bug we need to fix. > In the case I saw, the server was on 1.4, but in Julian's case the > server was on 1.6. Maybe you're seeing the same or a similar problem, > with a presumably "very recent" server? This one was different than most that I had seen. Almost everything in the text: line was right except for the revision number. It referenced 38904, and it should have referenced 38910. I know we've had some caching bugs in the past, and I'm curious if this is another one. > John, if you had time for a quick IRC session where you could explain > the ideas behind fsfsverify.py to me at a high level and answer questions, > I'd be grateful. And I'd very much like to see its functionality inside > of svnadmin verify/recover, partly because I believe that reimplementing > it there would give me great insight into the problem :) I can do that. My schedule is a bit wonky though. Early morning Eastern Standard Time works best for me (I'm usually up 4:30ish). Let me know what works for you. TTYL! -John
