On 5/5/14, 4:24 PM, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> As always, I tested with Windows XP (it's end of life, I know ...
> whatever) on a ramdisk, non-parellel.
> This time I took a copy of repository and working copy before
> rerunning the test :-). See attachment. Can anyone shed some light on
> I experimented a bit further with a copy of the repository and working
> copy of this failed test:
> - svnadmin verify says everything is ok.
> - a new svn checkout over svn:// works fine.
> - executing the failing "svn up" command (the last command of the
> failure output) on that particular working copy, talking with that
> particular repository over svn:// ... no problem.
> So I'm at a loss here. I don't see any corruption, yet the test reported it.
> Perhaps some kind of cache corruption is a possibility? A theory would
> be nice ... anything really.
I strongly suspect there is something wrong with your machine (memory going
bad?). The repository is nothing more than a dump/load from the greek tree.
After a dump/load the repository has the UUID set. No other modifications
happen to the repo and the only access to the repository via the server is the
update command that's failing. That rules out a problem with caching because
the cache should be entirely cold for this repository when the update command runs.
The error you're getting is:
svn: E160004: Corrupt node-revision '0.0.r1/4198'
svn: E160004: Missing id field in node-rev
The closest id in the repository is this: 0.0.r1/4206
The number after the slash is the offset which is stored in the private portion
of the svn_fs_id_t. The offset is stored as a apr_off_t (i.e. not a string but
Looking at the offsets in binary yields (leading zeros ommitted):
4206 = 1 0000 0110 1110
4198 = 1 0000 0110 0110
Note that they are off by exactly bit.
A memory issue would probably be very hard to reproduce. So this seems to fit
with the issues you've been having. Combine that with the fact that you've
been having unreproducible test failures in other places with this setup. I
have to conclude you have issues with your memory. I'd suggest running
memtest86 on the machine.
Received on 2014-05-12 21:57:32 CEST