> The real answer is "read Stefan's script and do whatever it does".
Not at all helpful. I thought this is where I am supposed to ask questions
that I do not know the answer to... I would not ask anything without trying
to figure it out myself first, up to a certain point. Is it reasonable to
ask me to go decipher a scripting language that I do not recognize? If I had
any idea of what it is trying to do I would have done that myself and not
asked the **specific** questions that I asked. I did appreciate the exchange
up to this point.
Subversion blows our current team provider out of the water. I love it. I
preach it to our office and anyone else who will listen. This has been the
****only**** problem so far migrating the old repository with full history
while maintaining current builds and in-house products and allowing seamless
switch over, which has been quite a task. This is an error that I have not
understood from the start of the original posting to the thread, and still
do not understand. I would really prefer to know what it even means in
layman's terms from someone who might know as well as fix, as opposed to
just fix. Maybe it could be avoided in a different manner, but I don't write
c or shell scripts or python for that matter so I am at a huge loss there. I
do not know the inner workings of Subversion.. I understand you are all
volunteers and I think what you do is awesome, and that you are not required
to answer any questions posted to the group. I appreciate it all very much,
and what the whole open source community does for all of us. Couldn't do
what I do without it, but if I need a bit of help, I do not feel responses
like this are necessary.
Patrick Fletcher
Marquis Software Development
Business Phone: (850) 877-8864 x132
Business Fax: (850) 877-0359
-----Original Message-----
From: 'Daniel Shahaf' [mailto:d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name]
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 1:41 PM
To: Patrick Fletcher
Cc: 'Stefan Sperling'; 'Tony Sweeney'; users_at_subversion.apache.org
Subject: Re: Subversion encountered a serious problem - during svn update
The real answer is "read Stefan's script and do whatever it does".
The core is this:
### equivalent to: for ($revision = 1; $revision <= $head_rev;
$revision++)
for revision in `$_seq $head_rev`
do
if [ -n "$shards" ]
then
shard_dir="`expr $revision / $shards`"
else
shard_dir=""
fi
if [ -f "$repository/db/revs/${shard_dir}.pack" ]
then
echo -n "Repository $repository has packing enabled
"
echo "but fsfsverify.py does not support packed FSFS
"
echo "repositories - skipping"
break
fi
echo -n "Checking $repository r${revision}: "
fsfsverify.py "$repository/db/revs/$shard_dir/$revision"
>/dev/null
if [ "$?" != "0" ]
then
echo "BAD"
bad_revs="$bad_revs $revision"
else
echo "ok"
fi
done
So (more below):
Patrick Fletcher wrote on Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 11:49:58 -0400:
> Thanks Daniel. Please verify:
>
> - call fsfsverify.py with no flags set for every single revision
> iteratively?
>
> >>> fsfsverify.py [repo]/db/revs/[?]/[?]
>
Yes.
> What kind of output to expect? Is a verbose process or can I just watch
for
> any output?
>
Ignore stdout. If there is anything on stderr, I suppose you can post
it here. (As long as the output contains only offsets and checksums,
there is no confidentiality issue in posting it here.)
> If corruption is found from output, do I run on single revision with -f
flag
> or reply to thread with results? What are other flags (can't find
> documentation and may be missing something obvious)?
>
As the script stands, it's "post back to the thread". The -f flag is
the "attempt to fix" flag.
> Thanks again.
>
> Patrick Fletcher
> Marquis Software Development
> Business Phone: (850) 877-8864 x132
> Business Fax: (850) 877-0359
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Shahaf [mailto:d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 10:17 AM
> To: Patrick Fletcher
> Cc: 'Stefan Sperling'; 'Tony Sweeney'; users_at_subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Subversion encountered a serious problem - during svn update
>
> Just write a loop in some language that does
>
> for (i = 0; i <= HEAD; i++)
> call(fsfsverify, i);
>
> Patrick Fletcher wrote on Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 16:43:02 -0400:
> > I see. I have no idea which revisions are problematic as a whole, I have
> > only run into specific cases, of which the only way I could get around
and
> > continue working was to dump working copy and checkout HEAD again.
> >
> > Only reason cygwin came into picture was to run the .sh file.
> >
> > I have already run and the normal svnadmin verify which says everything
is
> > fine... Still trying to pinpoint where and what the actual problem is.
The
> > info in the first email was just to try to help. I have no idea what the
> > actual problem could be. I believe you said this was a more thorough
> > examination (may turn up things svnadmin verify will not). Can I command
> > line the fsfsverify.py to check every revision? If not, can I just write
> > something to do it for me iteratively... Obviously don't want to fix
(-f)
> > anything yet as I don't know where the problem lies, but I can find no
> > explanation of the other flags available and I am python nub.
> >
> > Thanks for bearing with me!
> >
> > Patrick Fletcher
> > Marquis Software Development
> > Business Phone: (850) 877-8864 x132
> > Business Fax: (850) 877-0359
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stefan Sperling [mailto:stsp_at_elego.de]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 4:30 PM
> > To: Patrick Fletcher
> > Cc: Tony Sweeney; users_at_subversion.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Subversion encountered a serious problem - during svn
update
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 03:09:15PM -0400, Patrick Fletcher wrote:
> > > Ahh... Thanks a bunch. The Python file indeed had similar errors. Now
> when
> > I
> > > run I get:
> > >
> > > ****************************************************
> > > PatrickF_at_DESK28 /cygdrive/g/Subversion
> > > $ ./verify-revisions.sh Repositories/eomis_1_6_12
> > > /usr/bin/seq: invalid floating point argument: 93909
> > > Try `/usr/bin/seq --help' for more information.
> > > ****************************************************
> > >
> > > 93909 is HEAD revision. Any ideas?
> >
> > I'm not a windows expert so the script may fail on cygwin.
> > I've tested it on Linux and BSD.
> >
> > But if you already know which revisions are problematic, you don't need
> > my script. Just run fsfsverify.py on the problematic revisions directly.
> > For instance: fsfsverify.py /path/to/repos/db/revs/0/42
> >
> > Stefan
> >
> >
>
>
Received on 2010-09-08 20:37:09 CEST