Re: [PATCH/RFC] Allow writing loose objects that are corrupted in a pack file

["R. Tyler Ballance" <tyler@slide.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3010 bytes --]

On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 20:25 -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, R. Tyler Ballance wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 09:36 +0100, Jan Krüger wrote:
> > > For fixing a corrupted repository by using backup copies of individual
> > > files, allow write_sha1_file() to write loose files even if the object
> > > already exists in a pack file, but only if the existing entry is marked
> > > as corrupted.
> > 
> > I figured I'd reply to this again, since the issue cropped up again.
> > 
> > We started experiencing *large* numbers of corruptions like the ones
> > that started the thread (one developer was receiving them once or twice
> > a day) with v1.6.0.4
> > 
> > We went ahead and upgraded to a custom build of v1.6.1 with Jan's patch
> > (below) and the issues /seem/ to have resolved themselves. I'm not
> > certain whether Jan's patch was really responsible, or if there was
> > another issue that caused this to correct itself in v1.6.1. 

I'll back the patch out and redeploy, it's worth mentioning that a
coworker of mine just got the issue as well (on 1.6.1). He was able to
`git pull` and the error went away, but I doubt that it "magically fixed
itself"


> Please back it out.  As it stands, that patch is a no op because of the 
> way git is used, and even if the patch was to work as intended, its 
> purpose is not to magically fix corruptions without special action from 
> your part.  If you have corruption problems coming back only because of 
> the removal of this patch then something is really really fishy and I 
> would really like to know about it.
> 
> There were indeed many changes between v1.6.0.4 and v1.6.1: the exact 
> number is 1029.  A couple of them are especially addressing increased 
> robustness against some kind of pack corruptions.  But in any case you 
> still should see error messages appearing about them.
> 
> And don't underestimate the power of disk corruptions.  I started to 
> work on git corruption resilience simply because I ended up with a 
> corrupted pack at some point.  Then a while later I got another 
> corrupted pack.  Then another while later I lost my filesystem entirely 
> and had to reinstall my system (after buying a new disk).  Turns out 
> that my old disk is silently corrupting data without signaling any 
> errors to the host.

I highly doubt this, I've got the issue appearing on at least 7
different development boxes (not workstations, 2U quad-core ECC RAM, etc
machines), while that doesn't mean that they all don't have issues, the
probability of them *all* having disk issues, and it somehow only
manifesting itself with Git usage, is low ;)

I've tarred one of the repositories that had it in a reproducible state
so I can create a build and extract the tar and run against that to
verify any patches anybody might have, but unfortunately at 7GB of
company code and assets, I can't exactly share ;)


Cheers


-- 
-R. Tyler Ballance
Slide, Inc.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]