RE: corrupt revision, "Reading one svndiff window read beyond the end of the representation"

 
I don't recall exactly where I found this file (author's own site, I
think), but this works for me on CentOS 5.3; If the attachment doesn't
come through, ask and I'll email directly. Ah, here's where I got it:

http://www.szakmeister.net/fsfsverify/

Download link is at the bottom.

Tony.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Justin Georgeson [mailto:JGeorgeson_at_lgc.com]
> Sent: 03 August 2010 01:24
> To: Mark Phippard
> Cc: users_at_subversion.apache.org
> Subject: RE: corrupt revision, "Reading one svndiff window
> read beyond the end of the representation"
>
> It doesn't come with the CollabNet precompiled binaries (even
> the -extras package) so I grabbed a copy from
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/trunk/contrib/server-s
> ide/fsfsverify.py?view=log. I'm on a RH4.6 with python 2.4.4.
> With no options it exits with
>
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File "/opt/CollabNet_Subversion/sbin/fsfsverify.py", line 1120, in ?
> for noderev in strategy:
> File "/opt/CollabNet_Subversion/sbin/fsfsverify.py", line
> 839, in _nodeWalker
> for x in self._nodeWalker():
> File "/opt/CollabNet_Subversion/sbin/fsfsverify.py", line
> 839, in _nodeWalker
> for x in self._nodeWalker():
> File "/opt/CollabNet_Subversion/sbin/fsfsverify.py", line
> 839, in _nodeWalker
> for x in self._nodeWalker():
> File "/opt/CollabNet_Subversion/sbin/fsfsverify.py", line
> 839, in _nodeWalker
> for x in self._nodeWalker():
> File "/opt/CollabNet_Subversion/sbin/fsfsverify.py", line
> 839, in _nodeWalker
> for x in self._nodeWalker():
> File "/opt/CollabNet_Subversion/sbin/fsfsverify.py", line
> 839, in _nodeWalker
> for x in self._nodeWalker():
> File "/opt/CollabNet_Subversion/sbin/fsfsverify.py", line
> 839, in _nodeWalker
> for x in self._nodeWalker():
> File "/opt/CollabNet_Subversion/sbin/fsfsverify.py", line
> 839, in _nodeWalker
> for x in self._nodeWalker():
> File "/opt/CollabNet_Subversion/sbin/fsfsverify.py", line
> 839, in _nodeWalker
> for x in self._nodeWalker():
> File "/opt/CollabNet_Subversion/sbin/fsfsverify.py", line
> 832, in _nodeWalker
> noderev = NodeRev(self.f, self.currentRev)
> File "/opt/CollabNet_Subversion/sbin/fsfsverify.py", line
> 678, in __init__
> (rev, offset, length, size, digest) = value.split(' ')
> ValueError: too many values to unpack
> [svnadmin_at_hourdcm1 ~]$
>
> ________________________________
> From: Mark Phippard [markphip_at_gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 5:47 PM
> To: Justin Georgeson
> Cc: users_at_subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: corrupt revision, "Reading one svndiff window
> read beyond the end of the representation"
>
> Have you tried fsfsverify.py?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 2, 2010, at 6:39 PM, Justin Georgeson
> <JGeorgeson_at_lgc.com<mailto:JGeorgeson_at_lgc.com>> wrote:
>
> I have a repo with >39k revisions. Last week, r39245 was
> committed, a merge of a single file from trunk to branch. It
> is the HEAD revision of that file on that branch. Turns out
> this revision is corrupt
>
> [svnadmin_at_hourdcm3 ~]$ svnadmin verify -r 39245 /repos/prowess
> svnadmin: Reading one svndiff window read beyond the end of
> the representation
>
> I've searched from r30000 to HEAD in this repo and that's the
> only rev that fails the verify. All our backup copies have
> the same issue too. I'm wondering what our options for
> recovery are. Some suggestions we have come up with internally are:
>
> 1. Developer still has sandbox which reports the parent
> folder as updated, so have him 'svn cat' the previous version
> and commit that, then re-commit the changes from the corrupt
> revision 2. 'svn rm' the file from the server and re-add it
> (losing ancestry) 3. Some combination of svndump up to that
> revision, import to new repo, redo that merge in new repo,
> overwrite the revision file with new one 4. delete revision
> file (seems like bad idea) 5. svn dump up to corrupt revision
> and everything after bad revision, merge dumps, create new
> repo, redo merge
>
> Is there something else we missed? Which of these seems like
> the safest/easiest?
>
> ________________________________
> This e-mail, including any attached files, may contain
> confidential and privileged information for the sole use of
> the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution, or
> disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not
> the intended recipient (or authorized to receive information
> for the intended recipient), please contact the sender by
> reply e-mail and delete all copies of this message.
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please visit
> http://www.messagelabs.com/email
> ______________________________________________________________________
>