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

Re: How reliable is svadmin verify?

From: Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:09:22 +0200

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:44:36PM +0200, Thorsten Schöning wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I had to deal with a server crash the last days and had to restore our
> repositories from some days old backups it seemed that we partly
> backed up somehow corrupted data. I used svnadmin verify to check the
> repositories during my repairs and found, that different versions of
> svnadmin behave differently in verification. Our production server
> runs Subversion 1.4.x, on my notebook I used version 1.6.x. I found
> one repository where svnadmin verify with version 1.6.x didn't find
> any errors, but a svnadmin dump did. Regarding the docs verify is just
> dump with no output, therefore I would have expected the same results.

This was changed around 1.5 I believe. Instead of being a dump without
output, the verification is now a replay with no output (replay is
what svnsync does). I think it was related to adding support for
the --revision option of svnadmin verify.

> Another interesting thing is that Subversion 1.4.x on our server found
> the problems svnadmin dump did on 1.6.x even with svnadmin verify,
> like I would have expected to be the case with 1.6.x either.

Which versions were you using exactly? A lot has happened within
the 1.6.x release series.

How did verification fail exactly? You're not showing any svnadmin output.
How did the output differ between 1.4.x and 1.6.x?

Note that one known problem with verification has been fixed in 1.6.11,
see http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3441
 
> Does anyone have an idea how this can happen? I wrote a tool to verify
> our repositories on a scheduled time and it can verify using verify
> and dump, therefore I would like to know which one to use. When we
> upgrade to Subversion 1.6.x on the server, should I switch from using
> verify to dump? Should both produce the same errors? Are there any
> errors both wouldn't be able to detect?

I think verify should catch all errors. It's broken if it doesn't.

If you're not using 1.6.12 yet, please update and try again.
If the problems persist, we should file a new issue, and it would be
great if you could then also describe in detail the difference between
1.4.x and 1.6.x behaviour. We need more than a prose description of the
problem. E.g. we'll need output, possiblty corrupt revisions that verify
fine with one version but don't with the other. etc. We will need
to be able to recreate your problem independently in order to fix it.
See also http://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/issues.html#reporting-bugs

BTW, have you tried fsfsverify.py?
See http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2010-09/0122.shtml
and this issue: http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3706

Thanks,
Stefan
Received on 2010-09-29 15:10:15 CEST

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.