[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

RE: My repository is buggered?

From: Colleen Dick <platypus_at_peak.org>
Date: 2006-06-04 19:03:47 CEST

Thanks all for all the suggestions

On Sun, 2006-06-04 at 07:16 -0700, Stuart Celarier wrote:
> Have you run svnadmin verify on the repository in question? What were
> the results? Is the repository using BDB or FSFS?
I'm pretty sure it's BDB (I'm pretty new at this admin stuff but a
veteran of using svn as a developer)

I ran svnadmin verify on the server (I control it)
it said the following:
svnadmin: Can't open file '/back2/svn/tixrus/trunk/format': No such file
or directory

> I don't like the sound of hacking on the Subversion administration
> folders or in the repository, if that's what you're doing. I've read
> dire warnings against doing this,
I didn't hack the repository itself only my working copy. In retro, it
probably wasn't such a great idea. I suspect it checks dates and
filestamps to guard against this kind of thing.
> and would probably prefer to restore a
> backed up copy of the repository. You do back up your repositories,
> correct?
I hope to shout. I pay a backup fee at my colo, they're responsible
for massive damages if they can't bring back a previous. If I restore,
though, wouldn't all working copies be invalid and out of synch and is
there an easy way to synch them?
> Given that you're blocked on this issue, although it's not ideal, have
> you considered deleting the file from the repository and adding the
> current file?

I considered renaming it and adding it, and putting the newest committed
version back in the working copy, so I'd still have the history if I
wanted it. I could also check out an entirely new working copy, which
would be entirely OK if I was sure the repository itself was not
corrupt. I was suspicious of the rep being corrupted because I had a
hard disk fail last week in a raid set. I am not a hardware person but
I thought the whole point of raid was that the system just fails over to
the remaining good disk(s) and that you don't even notice except that it
emails some contact to let you know a drive failed. That's NOT what
happened.. I had web sites spewing gibberish and the man command failed
and I thought I had been hacked. Once my hardware guys disconnected the
bad drive everything "worked" again. We're limping along riskily on
just one until the replacement arrives.

I'll try the other post suggestion of running the log from the head
svn log -r0:HEAD

OK.... It goes all the way to rev 366 like before. I don't understand
why the BASE would suddenly be 66 (????) Why 66? why not 172?

and I did a svn log -r0:HEAD on one of the files I changed very recently
that worked fine, and it goes all the way to r398.

But why when I do a svn info in my working copy it says I'm on r66
>svn info
Path: .
URL: svn://mamita.colleenweb.com:3960/back2/svn/tixrus/trunk
Repository UUID: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Revision: 66
Node Kind: directory
Schedule: normal
Last Changed Author: colleen
Last Changed Rev: 66
Last Changed Date: 2006-03-23 12:28:20 -0800 (Thu, 23 Mar 2006)

yet when I do a status it doesn't show masses and masses of files that
have been modified

It's worth a try to
check out a new working copy but I'm still concerned that the
repo may be south...
> Stuart Celarier | Corillian Corporation
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org

To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Jun 4 19:11:42 2006

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Users mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.