On Sat, 14 May 2011 21:10 +0300, "Daniel Shahaf" <danie...@apache.org> wrote: > > > On Sat, 14 May 2011 19:54 +0200, "Steinar Bang" <s...@dod.no> wrote: > > >>>>> Stefan Sperling <s...@elego.de>: > > > > > The script probably took a wrong guess. > > > > > Hopefully this is the known corruption problem with a duplicate block of > > > data in the revision file. > > > > > Can you check if the original revision file (i.e. not modified by > > > fsfsverify.py) somewhere contains a data block which contains data > > > that matches the data around byte offset 1916? > > > > "offset 1916", is that "byte number 1916 in the 683 ref file"? > > Is that 1916 decimal, or hexadecimal? I'm assuming decimal for now. > > > > Yes. >
"Yes, it's decimal". Because the node-rev indicated offset 1910 (decimal) and fsfsverify spoke about offset 1916, which corresponds to '1910 + strlen("DELTA\n")' (and to the 0x77C offset of the "SVN\1" in your hex dump) so well that I'm not going to bother check that fsfsverify doesn't print offsets in hex. :-)