On 11/08/2014 06:05 PM, Andrew Deason wrote:
That particular warning doesn't seem like it would cause problems; just
taht we're using up extra unused space in the db. Would you be willing
to share your (partially-corrupt) vldb blob? That way we could try to
make vldb_check handle that issue.
Oh,
Am 06.11.2014 18:13, schrieb Andrew Deason:
> On Thu, 06 Nov 2014 00:18:36 +0100
> Christian wrote:
>
>> windump.exe -i blah host 130.75.103.223 and host 130.75.102.221 and
>> not tcp
>>
>> gives me just an arp who-has and reply.
> [...]
>> windump.exe -i blah port 7000 and udp
>> turns up nothing
On Sat, 8 Nov 2014 10:52:35 -0500
Michael Meffie wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Nov 2014 10:58:21 +0200
> Kostas Liakakis wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > Reading about the recent thread for VLDB corruption I decided to take a
> > look at ours, again. vldb_check gives me about 3000 entries likes this:
> >
>
On Sat, 8 Nov 2014 10:58:21 +0200
Kostas Liakakis wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Reading about the recent thread for VLDB corruption I decided to take a
> look at ours, again. vldb_check gives me about 3000 entries likes this:
>
> address 1477640 (offset 0x168c48): Free vlentry not on free chain
>
> whi
On Sat, 08 Nov 2014 10:58:21 +0200
Kostas Liakakis wrote:
> Reading about the recent thread for VLDB corruption I decided to take a
> look at ours, again. vldb_check gives me about 3000 entries likes this:
>
> address 1477640 (offset 0x168c48): Free vlentry not on free chain
>
> which -fix doe
Hello,
Reading about the recent thread for VLDB corruption I decided to take a
look at ours, again. vldb_check gives me about 3000 entries likes this:
address 1477640 (offset 0x168c48): Free vlentry not on free chain
which -fix doesn't seem able to fix.
We had several vldb corruption issues
