> -----Original Message-----
> From: Branko Čibej [mailto:br...@wandisco.com] 

> Are we talking about the repository format or the FSFS format here? If 
> <repos>/db/fs-type says "fsfs" then the repository format
> (<repos>/format) is probably 3 and you're talking about <repos>/db/format, 
> yes? The distinction is important.

Yes, I'm referring to db/* files.
        $ more format  fs-type
        ::::::::::::::
        format
        ::::::::::::::
        1
        ::::::::::::::
        fs-type
        ::::::::::::::
        fsfs

>
> In any case, 1.8 /should/ be able to dump an FSFSv1 repository, and the 
> <repos>/db/current file should exists; it's been around since FSFSv1.
> You can try recreating it; the format is described here:
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/structure
>
> To find the youngest revision, look for the highest-numered file in 
> <repos>/db/revs. If you're just going to dump the repository, it should be 
> safe to set the next-node-id and next-copy-id to some large number, say 
> 999999; but I wouldn't recommend trying to commit to the repository.
>
> Please report if the above works or I'm just talking through my hat. :)
>
> -- Brane

Good News:  Recreating the db/current file worked in that it allowed 'svnadmin 
dump' to run.  

Bad News:  However, it seems that I have bigger issues:
        * Dumped revision 109662.
        svnadmin: E720002: Can't open file 'devel_copy\db\revprops\109663': The 
system cannot find the file specified.

When I sort the files in db/revs numerically, I see gaps in the revs:
        109661
        109662
        109668
        109734
        ...
        109735
        157939
        157940
        157941
        159433 
        159607 
        160600 
        160601
        162409
And 'ls | wc -l' in dev/revs shows that there are 141,768 files, but the 
highest rev in db/revs is 162409...

*sigh*  I guess I can try piecemeal dumps.

Thanks for the help everyone, but I'm thinking my missing db/current file is a 
symptom of the repo being mangled (probably due to inadequate backup procedures 
or a bad restore from tape.   Rev 1 is from 2006, and the repo was just around 
for reference so no real worries.) 


Reply via email to