SFV Verification

Get help with all aspects of SABnzbd
Forum rules
Help us help you:
  • Are you using the latest stable version of SABnzbd? Downloads page.
  • Tell us what system you run SABnzbd on.
  • Adhere to the forum rules.
  • Do you experience problems during downloading?
    Check your connection in Status and Interface settings window.
    Use Test Server in Config > Servers.
    We will probably ask you to do a test using only basic settings.
  • Do you experience problems during repair or unpacking?
    Enable +Debug logging in the Status and Interface settings window and share the relevant parts of the log here using [ code ] sections.
Post Reply
jarheadnewbie
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 15
Joined: July 3rd, 2015, 9:43 am

SFV Verification

Post by jarheadnewbie »

[2-179846] PAR2 received incorrect options, check your Config->Switches settings
Trying SFV verification
Some files failed to verify against "2-179846.sfv"
User avatar
shypike
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 19773
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:49 pm

Re: SFV Verification

Post by shypike »

It looks like you entered some incorrect parameters for par2 in Config->Switches.
Check those, maybe just clear the fields.
jarheadnewbie
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 15
Joined: July 3rd, 2015, 9:43 am

Re: SFV Verification

Post by jarheadnewbie »

shypike wrote:It looks like you entered some incorrect parameters for par2 in Config->Switches.
Check those, maybe just clear the fields.
I cleared the PAR2 Field which had -t0 in there...

And now it gives me this error

[BLAH_s03e01.hdtv.x264-batv] Repair failed, not enough repair blocks (14 short)
Trying SFV verification
Some files failed to verify against "BLAH.s03e01.hdtv.x264-batv.sfv"

ANy guidance here would be appreciated as am not sure what Config->Siwtches does...

as mentioned am on a MAC and this is running of my NAS
User avatar
shypike
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 19773
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:49 pm

Re: SFV Verification

Post by shypike »

It just means that not enough data was available on the server.
Likely the victim of a (partial) DMCA takedown request or just a sloppy poster.
Post Reply