Sanity check

[Richard Kreiss]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: filepro-list-bounces+rkreiss=verizon.net at lists.celestial.com [mailto:filepro-
> list-bounces+rkreiss=verizon.net at lists.celestial.com] On Behalf Of Kenneth
> Brody
> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 12:41 PM
> To: rkreiss at gccconsulting.net
> Cc: filepro-list at lists.celestial.com; 'filePro Alpha Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: Sanity check
> 
> Richard Kreiss wrote:
> [...]
> >
> ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────
> ──────────────────────────────┐
> > │  Sanity check failure!  split() len < 0                                      │
> > │ tptr = tptr=(6,26932,12845,1,0)                                              │
> > │ file='logfile@' index=?which=1, nodesize=1024, entries[which]=13365
> │
> > │ which=1, nodesize=1024, entries[which]=13365                                 │
> > │ count=12845, bound=7195, entries[1]=13365                                    │
> > │                                                                              │
> > │ Write this information down, save a copy of the above                        │
> > │ index, and press  Enter  to generate a core dump to                          │
> > │ send to fpsupport, along with the index.                                     │
> >
> └────────────────────────────────────────────────
> ────────────── Press  Enter   ┘
> [...]
> 
> Can you verify the exact version number of the program generating this
> message?  The message should include the index letter, not a "?" as your
> message above shows.
> 
> Basically, however, it's a corrupted index.  The information shows exactly
> where in the index the corruption was detected.  In this case, although the
> index node size is 1K, the node says there are 12845 keys stored in the
> listed node, with the key stored at offset 13365 within that node.
> 
> --
> Kenneth Brody

Ken,

Version 5.6.07R9 & 5.6.07D9

The other night I deleted all of the indexes and then rebuild them from scratch.

My problem is that other records have been updated and logfile records added without a problem.  It is only these 2 records which have created this problem. 


Richard Kreiss
GCC Consulting
rkreiss at gccconsulting.net