short-circuit checker/verifier behavior #1044
Labels
No Label
0.2.0
0.3.0
0.4.0
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.7.0
0.8.0
0.9.0
1.0.0
1.1.0
1.10.0
1.10.1
1.10.2
1.10a2
1.11.0
1.12.0
1.12.1
1.13.0
1.14.0
1.15.0
1.15.1
1.2.0
1.3.0
1.4.1
1.5.0
1.6.0
1.6.1
1.7.0
1.7.1
1.7β
1.8.0
1.8.1
1.8.2
1.8.3
1.8β
1.9.0
1.9.0-s3branch
1.9.0a1
1.9.0a2
1.9.0b1
1.9.1
1.9.2
1.9.2a1
LeastAuthority.com automation
blocker
cannot reproduce
cloud-branch
code
code-dirnodes
code-encoding
code-frontend
code-frontend-cli
code-frontend-ftp-sftp
code-frontend-magic-folder
code-frontend-web
code-mutable
code-network
code-nodeadmin
code-peerselection
code-storage
contrib
critical
defect
dev-infrastructure
documentation
duplicate
enhancement
fixed
invalid
major
minor
n/a
normal
operational
packaging
somebody else's problem
supercritical
task
trivial
unknown
was already fixed
website
wontfix
worksforme
No Milestone
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Reference: tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25#1044
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
No description provided.
Delete Branch "%!s(<nil>)"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
It appears that there are some cases where the checker or verifier have already determined that a file is unhealthy, but they proceed to do a thorough analysis of that file, which could be expensive. Imagine for example that you are doing a full verifier run (which downloads and checks the correctness of each share in its entirety), and you immediately discover that the first share that you try to download is broken. If the only thing you need to do is report healthy-or-unhealthy to your caller then you could stop there, report "unhealthy" and save yourself a lot of work.
If we implement #614 (redefine "Healthy" to be "Happy" for checker/verifier/repairer) then you would have to do more work to figure out whether there is any chance that the final result would qualify as satisfying "servers of happiness", but you still wouldn't have to do all the work of verifying every share, in some cases, when you can already deduce that the answer is going to be "not happy".