Stefan Sperling wrote on Wed, May 18, 2011 at 12:12:48 +0200:
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:53:13AM +0200, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > What came out of this thread? Is this one of the known corruption kinds?
>
> It doesn't seem to be known.
> It could be a flipped bits on the hard drive for all we know.
>
> > Is this is a case of a data block being written partially in one place
> > and fully in another, or a case of a corrupt or truncated data block?
>
> Steinar shared the bad revision file privately.
> Philip Martin and myself spent a few hours at the Apache Retreat looking
> at the file but we got nowhere.
>
> There doesn't seem to be a duplicated block. The revision file itself seems
> to be fine, expect that one of the lengths of the bad rev doesn't seem to
Huh? Are you referring to the two 'length' attributes in the text: and
data: attributes of a node-revision? In what way is it wrong?
> make sense. The bad representation we extracted from the file fails to
> decompress with zlib (which is what fsfsverify reported).
>
> We could get the revision to verify fine by referring the node revision
> to a different representation but that is cheating and might break
> subseuent revs.
>
> Steinar, I'm sorry we can't help quickly here. At the moment I have no time
> to look at this further. I hope you have a good backup you can restore from.
Received on 2011-05-18 12:19:29 CEST