tahoe-lafs
/
trac-2024-07-25
2
0
Issues 1.1k Wiki

upload is unhappy even though the shares are already distributed #1124

New Issue
Open
opened 2010-07-18 16:18:57 +00:00 by zooko · 16 comments
zooko commented 2010-07-18 16:18:57 +00:00
Copy Link

Here's a test case that I added to source:src/allmydata/test/test_upload.py:

    def test_problem_layout_0123_03_2_1(self):
        # Zooko stumbled on this case when investigating #1118.
        self.basedir = self.mktemp()
        d = self._setup_and_upload(k=2, n=4)

        # server 0: shares 0, 1, 2, 3
        # server 1: shares 0, 3
        # server 2: share 1
        # server 3: share 2
        # With this layout, an upload should just be satisfied that the current distribution is good enough, right?
        def _setup(ign):
            self._add_server_with_share(server_number=0, share_number=None)
            self._add_server_with_share(server_number=1, share_number=0)
            self._add_server_with_share(server_number=2, share_number=1)
            self._add_server_with_share(server_number=3, share_number=2)
            # Copy shares
            self._copy_share_to_server(3, 1)
            client = self.g.clients[0]
            client.DEFAULT_ENCODING_PARAMETERS['happy'] = 4
            return client

        d.addCallback(_setup)
        d.addCallback(lambda client:
            client.upload(upload.Data("data" * 10000, convergence="")))
        return d

When I run it, it fails like this:

[ERROR]: allmydata.test.test_upload.EncodingParameters.test_problem_layout_ticket_1118

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/Users/zooko/playground/tahoe-lafs/trunk/src/allmydata/immutable/upload.py", line 510, in _got_response
    return self._loop()
  File "/Users/zooko/playground/tahoe-lafs/trunk/src/allmydata/immutable/upload.py", line 363, in _loop
    self._get_progress_message()))
allmydata.interfaces.UploadUnhappinessError: shares could be placed on only 3 server(s) such that any 2 of them have enough shares to recover the file, but we were asked to place shares on at least 4 such servers. (placed all 4 shares, want to place shares on at least 4 servers such that any 2 of them have enough shares to recover the file, sent 4 queries to 4 peers, 4 queries placed some shares, 0 placed none (of which 0 placed none due to the server being full and 0 placed none due to an error))

Why does the upload not succeed?
I added debugprints and here are some of them:

2010-07-18 09:54:15-0600 [-] response to allocate_buckets() from peer xgru5adv: alreadygot=(0, 1, 2, 3), allocated=()
2010-07-18 09:54:15-0600 [-] response to allocate_buckets() from peer ysbz4st7: alreadygot=(0, 3), allocated=()
2010-07-18 09:54:15-0600 [-] response to allocate_buckets() from peer b3llgpww: alreadygot=(2,), allocated=(1,)
2010-07-18 09:54:15-0600 [-] response to allocate_buckets() from peer rvsry4kn: alreadygot=(1,), allocated=(0,)
2010-07-18 09:54:15-0600 [-] server selection unsuccessful for <Tahoe2PeerSelector for upload t2uvf>: shares could be placed on only 3 server(s) such that any 2 of them have enough shares to recover the file, but we were asked to place shares on at least 4 such servers.: placed all 4 shares, want to place shares on at least 4 servers such that any 2 of them have enough shares to recover the file, sent 4 queries to 4 peers, 4 queries placed some shares, 0 placed none (of which 0 placed none due to the server being full and 0 placed none due to an error): sh0: rvsry4kn, sh1: b3llgpww+rvsry4kn, sh2: b3llgpww, sh3: ysbz4st7+xgru5adv
Here's a test case that I added to source:src/allmydata/test/test_upload.py: ``` def test_problem_layout_0123_03_2_1(self): # Zooko stumbled on this case when investigating #1118. self.basedir = self.mktemp() d = self._setup_and_upload(k=2, n=4) # server 0: shares 0, 1, 2, 3 # server 1: shares 0, 3 # server 2: share 1 # server 3: share 2 # With this layout, an upload should just be satisfied that the current distribution is good enough, right? def _setup(ign): self._add_server_with_share(server_number=0, share_number=None) self._add_server_with_share(server_number=1, share_number=0) self._add_server_with_share(server_number=2, share_number=1) self._add_server_with_share(server_number=3, share_number=2) # Copy shares self._copy_share_to_server(3, 1) client = self.g.clients[0] client.DEFAULT_ENCODING_PARAMETERS['happy'] = 4 return client d.addCallback(_setup) d.addCallback(lambda client: client.upload(upload.Data("data" * 10000, convergence=""))) return d ``` When I run it, it fails like this: ``` [ERROR]: allmydata.test.test_upload.EncodingParameters.test_problem_layout_ticket_1118 Traceback (most recent call last): File "/Users/zooko/playground/tahoe-lafs/trunk/src/allmydata/immutable/upload.py", line 510, in _got_response return self._loop() File "/Users/zooko/playground/tahoe-lafs/trunk/src/allmydata/immutable/upload.py", line 363, in _loop self._get_progress_message())) allmydata.interfaces.UploadUnhappinessError: shares could be placed on only 3 server(s) such that any 2 of them have enough shares to recover the file, but we were asked to place shares on at least 4 such servers. (placed all 4 shares, want to place shares on at least 4 servers such that any 2 of them have enough shares to recover the file, sent 4 queries to 4 peers, 4 queries placed some shares, 0 placed none (of which 0 placed none due to the server being full and 0 placed none due to an error)) ``` Why does the upload not succeed? I added debugprints and here are some of them: ``` 2010-07-18 09:54:15-0600 [-] response to allocate_buckets() from peer xgru5adv: alreadygot=(0, 1, 2, 3), allocated=() 2010-07-18 09:54:15-0600 [-] response to allocate_buckets() from peer ysbz4st7: alreadygot=(0, 3), allocated=() 2010-07-18 09:54:15-0600 [-] response to allocate_buckets() from peer b3llgpww: alreadygot=(2,), allocated=(1,) 2010-07-18 09:54:15-0600 [-] response to allocate_buckets() from peer rvsry4kn: alreadygot=(1,), allocated=(0,) 2010-07-18 09:54:15-0600 [-] server selection unsuccessful for <Tahoe2PeerSelector for upload t2uvf>: shares could be placed on only 3 server(s) such that any 2 of them have enough shares to recover the file, but we were asked to place shares on at least 4 such servers.: placed all 4 shares, want to place shares on at least 4 servers such that any 2 of them have enough shares to recover the file, sent 4 queries to 4 peers, 4 queries placed some shares, 0 placed none (of which 0 placed none due to the server being full and 0 placed none due to an error): sh0: rvsry4kn, sh1: b3llgpww+rvsry4kn, sh2: b3llgpww, sh3: ysbz4st7+xgru5adv ```
zooko added the
code-peerselection
major
defect
1.7.0
 labels 2010-07-18 16:18:57 +00:00
zooko added this to the undecided milestone 2010-07-18 16:18:57 +00:00
davidsarah commented 2010-07-18 19:54:59 +00:00
Owner
Copy Link

(Nitpick: the name of the test method should be 0123_03_1_2.)

Is it the maximum matching implementation that is incorrect? If it is, then it should be possible to write a narrower test case for that.

(Nitpick: the name of the test method should be `0123_03_1_2`.) Is it the maximum matching implementation that is incorrect? If it is, then it should be possible to write a narrower test case for that.
davidsarah commented 2010-07-18 20:07:57 +00:00
Owner
Copy Link

Replying to davidsarah:

Is it the maximum matching implementation that is incorrect? If it is, then it should be possible to write a narrower test case for that.

That isn't the problem:

>>> from allmydata.util import happinessutil
>>> sharemap = {0: set([0, 1, 2, 3]), 1: set([0, 3]), 2: set([1]), 3: set([2])}
>>> happinessutil.servers_of_happiness(sharemap)
4
Replying to [davidsarah](/tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25/issues/1124#issuecomment-78659): > Is it the maximum matching implementation that is incorrect? If it is, then it should be possible to write a narrower test case for that. That isn't the problem: ``` >>> from allmydata.util import happinessutil >>> sharemap = {0: set([0, 1, 2, 3]), 1: set([0, 3]), 2: set([1]), 3: set([2])} >>> happinessutil.servers_of_happiness(sharemap) 4 ```
zooko commented 2010-07-18 21:30:44 +00:00
Author
Copy Link

Swapping the order of the last two servers in the test makes it so the code under test starts succeeding to upload instead of failing to upload. This fails:

    def test_problem_layout_0123_03_1_2(self):
        # Zooko stumbled on this case when investigating #1118.
        self.basedir = self.mktemp()
        d = self._setup_and_upload(k=2, n=4)

        # server 0: shares 0, 1, 2, 3
        # server 1: shares 0, 3
        # server 2: share 1
        # server 3: share 2
        # With this layout, an upload should just be satisfied that the current distribution is good enough, right?
        def _setup(ign):
            self._add_server_with_share(server_number=0, share_number=None)
            self._add_server_with_share(server_number=1, share_number=0)
            self._add_server_with_share(server_number=2, share_number=1)
            self._add_server_with_share(server_number=3, share_number=2)
            # Copy shares
            self._copy_share_to_server(3, 1)
            client = self.g.clients[0]
            client.DEFAULT_ENCODING_PARAMETERS['happy'] = 4
            return client

        d.addCallback(_setup)
        d.addCallback(lambda client:
            client.upload(upload.Data("data" * 10000, convergence="")))
        return d

while logging the following:

$ grep -Ee"response|success" _trial_temp/test.log 2010-07-18 15:16:55-0600 [-] response from peer xgru5adv: alreadygot=(), allocated=(0,)
2010-07-18 15:16:55-0600 [-] response from peer xgru5adv: alreadygot=(), allocated=(1, 2, 3)
2010-07-18 15:16:55-0600 [-] peer selection successful for <Tahoe2PeerSelector for upload t2uvf>: placed all 4 shares, want to place shares on at least 1 servers such that any 2 of them have enough shares to recover the file, sent 2 queries to 1 peers, 2 queries placed some shares, 0 placed none (of which 0 placed none due to the server being full and 0 placed none due to an error)
2010-07-18 15:16:55-0600 [-] response from peer xgru5adv: alreadygot=(0, 1, 2, 3), allocated=()
2010-07-18 15:16:55-0600 [-] response from peer ysbz4st7: alreadygot=(0, 3), allocated=()
2010-07-18 15:16:55-0600 [-] response from peer b3llgpww: alreadygot=(2,), allocated=(1,)
2010-07-18 15:16:55-0600 [-] response from peer rvsry4kn: alreadygot=(1,), allocated=(0,)

This succeeds:

    def test_problem_layout_0123_03_2_1(self):
        # Zooko stumbled on this case when investigating #1118.
        self.basedir = self.mktemp()
        d = self._setup_and_upload(k=2, n=4)

        # server 0: shares 0, 1, 2, 3
        # server 1: shares 0, 3
        # server 2: share 2
        # server 3: share 1
        # With this layout, an upload should just be satisfied that the current distribution is good enough, right?
        def _setup(ign):
            self._add_server_with_share(server_number=0, share_number=None)
            self._add_server_with_share(server_number=1, share_number=0)
            self._add_server_with_share(server_number=2, share_number=2)
            self._add_server_with_share(server_number=3, share_number=1)
            # Copy shares
            self._copy_share_to_server(3, 1)
            client = self.g.clients[0]
            client.DEFAULT_ENCODING_PARAMETERS['happy'] = 4
            return client

        d.addCallback(_setup)
        d.addCallback(lambda client:
            client.upload(upload.Data("data" * 10000, convergence="")))
        return d

while logging the following:

$ grep -Ee"response|success" _trial_temp/test.log 
2010-07-18 15:16:01-0600 [-] response from peer xgru5adv: alreadygot=(), allocated=(0,)
2010-07-18 15:16:01-0600 [-] response from peer xgru5adv: alreadygot=(), allocated=(1, 2, 3)
2010-07-18 15:16:01-0600 [-] peer selection successful for <Tahoe2PeerSelector for upload t2uvf>: placed all 4 shares, want to place shares on at least 1 servers such that any 2 of them have enough shares to recover the file, sent 2 queries to 1 peers, 2 queries placed some shares, 0 placed none (of which 0 placed none due to the server being full and 0 placed none due to an error)
2010-07-18 15:16:02-0600 [-] response from peer xgru5adv: alreadygot=(0, 1, 2, 3), allocated=()
2010-07-18 15:16:02-0600 [-] response from peer ysbz4st7: alreadygot=(0, 3), allocated=()
2010-07-18 15:16:02-0600 [-] response from peer b3llgpww: alreadygot=(1,), allocated=()
2010-07-18 15:16:02-0600 [-] response from peer rvsry4kn: alreadygot=(2,), allocated=()
2010-07-18 15:16:02-0600 [-] peer selection successful for <Tahoe2PeerSelector for upload t2uvf>: placed all 4 shares, want to place shares on at least 4 servers such that any 2 of them have enough shares to recover the file, sent 4 queries to 4 peers, 4 queries placed some shares, 0 placed none (of which 0 placed none due to the server being full and 0 placed none due to an error)
Swapping the order of the last two servers in the test makes it so the code under test starts succeeding to upload instead of failing to upload. This fails: ``` def test_problem_layout_0123_03_1_2(self): # Zooko stumbled on this case when investigating #1118. self.basedir = self.mktemp() d = self._setup_and_upload(k=2, n=4) # server 0: shares 0, 1, 2, 3 # server 1: shares 0, 3 # server 2: share 1 # server 3: share 2 # With this layout, an upload should just be satisfied that the current distribution is good enough, right? def _setup(ign): self._add_server_with_share(server_number=0, share_number=None) self._add_server_with_share(server_number=1, share_number=0) self._add_server_with_share(server_number=2, share_number=1) self._add_server_with_share(server_number=3, share_number=2) # Copy shares self._copy_share_to_server(3, 1) client = self.g.clients[0] client.DEFAULT_ENCODING_PARAMETERS['happy'] = 4 return client d.addCallback(_setup) d.addCallback(lambda client: client.upload(upload.Data("data" * 10000, convergence=""))) return d ``` while logging the following: ``` $ grep -Ee"response|success" _trial_temp/test.log 2010-07-18 15:16:55-0600 [-] response from peer xgru5adv: alreadygot=(), allocated=(0,) 2010-07-18 15:16:55-0600 [-] response from peer xgru5adv: alreadygot=(), allocated=(1, 2, 3) 2010-07-18 15:16:55-0600 [-] peer selection successful for <Tahoe2PeerSelector for upload t2uvf>: placed all 4 shares, want to place shares on at least 1 servers such that any 2 of them have enough shares to recover the file, sent 2 queries to 1 peers, 2 queries placed some shares, 0 placed none (of which 0 placed none due to the server being full and 0 placed none due to an error) 2010-07-18 15:16:55-0600 [-] response from peer xgru5adv: alreadygot=(0, 1, 2, 3), allocated=() 2010-07-18 15:16:55-0600 [-] response from peer ysbz4st7: alreadygot=(0, 3), allocated=() 2010-07-18 15:16:55-0600 [-] response from peer b3llgpww: alreadygot=(2,), allocated=(1,) 2010-07-18 15:16:55-0600 [-] response from peer rvsry4kn: alreadygot=(1,), allocated=(0,) ``` This succeeds: ``` def test_problem_layout_0123_03_2_1(self): # Zooko stumbled on this case when investigating #1118. self.basedir = self.mktemp() d = self._setup_and_upload(k=2, n=4) # server 0: shares 0, 1, 2, 3 # server 1: shares 0, 3 # server 2: share 2 # server 3: share 1 # With this layout, an upload should just be satisfied that the current distribution is good enough, right? def _setup(ign): self._add_server_with_share(server_number=0, share_number=None) self._add_server_with_share(server_number=1, share_number=0) self._add_server_with_share(server_number=2, share_number=2) self._add_server_with_share(server_number=3, share_number=1) # Copy shares self._copy_share_to_server(3, 1) client = self.g.clients[0] client.DEFAULT_ENCODING_PARAMETERS['happy'] = 4 return client d.addCallback(_setup) d.addCallback(lambda client: client.upload(upload.Data("data" * 10000, convergence=""))) return d ``` while logging the following: ``` $ grep -Ee"response|success" _trial_temp/test.log 2010-07-18 15:16:01-0600 [-] response from peer xgru5adv: alreadygot=(), allocated=(0,) 2010-07-18 15:16:01-0600 [-] response from peer xgru5adv: alreadygot=(), allocated=(1, 2, 3) 2010-07-18 15:16:01-0600 [-] peer selection successful for <Tahoe2PeerSelector for upload t2uvf>: placed all 4 shares, want to place shares on at least 1 servers such that any 2 of them have enough shares to recover the file, sent 2 queries to 1 peers, 2 queries placed some shares, 0 placed none (of which 0 placed none due to the server being full and 0 placed none due to an error) 2010-07-18 15:16:02-0600 [-] response from peer xgru5adv: alreadygot=(0, 1, 2, 3), allocated=() 2010-07-18 15:16:02-0600 [-] response from peer ysbz4st7: alreadygot=(0, 3), allocated=() 2010-07-18 15:16:02-0600 [-] response from peer b3llgpww: alreadygot=(1,), allocated=() 2010-07-18 15:16:02-0600 [-] response from peer rvsry4kn: alreadygot=(2,), allocated=() 2010-07-18 15:16:02-0600 [-] peer selection successful for <Tahoe2PeerSelector for upload t2uvf>: placed all 4 shares, want to place shares on at least 4 servers such that any 2 of them have enough shares to recover the file, sent 4 queries to 4 peers, 4 queries placed some shares, 0 placed none (of which 0 placed none due to the server being full and 0 placed none due to an error) ```
zooko commented 2010-07-18 22:47:38 +00:00
Author
Copy Link

Attachment test-1124.dpatch.txt (11983 bytes) added

**Attachment** test-1124.dpatch.txt (11983 bytes) added
test-1124.dpatch.txt
12 KiB
zooko commented 2010-07-18 22:48:01 +00:00
Author
Copy Link

test-1124.dpatch.txt is a test for this issue, marked TODO.

[test-1124.dpatch.txt](/tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25/attachments/000078ac-ff33-a8f1-0515-104686c89c6a) is a test for this issue, marked TODO.
davidsarah commented 2010-07-18 23:45:15 +00:00
Owner
Copy Link

The problem seems to be the share redistribution algorithm implemented by Tahoe2PeerSelector (as modified by #778). If we instrument it to print out the sharemap (i.e. sharenum -> set of peerids) after the call to merge_peers in each iteration of _loop, we get (abbreviating each peerid to its first hex byte):

{0: set(['b9']), 1: set(['b9']), 2: set(['b9']), 3: set(['b9'])}
{0: set(['c4']), 1: set(['0e']), 2: set(['0e']), 3: set(['c4', 'b9'])}
{0: set(['8d']), 1: set(['0e', '8d']), 2: set(['0e']), 3: set(['c4', 'b9'])}

Presumably 'b9' is server 0. So we merge in all of the shares found for that server, but then in the same iteration of _loop, we move all but one of them into homeless_shares. I don't understand the intent of the algorithm fully, but it seems as though we're forgetting that server 0 had additional shares that if taken into account, would have increased servers_of_happiness -- even though they didn't increase it in that particular iteration.

The problem seems to be the share redistribution algorithm implemented by `Tahoe2PeerSelector` (as modified by #778). If we instrument it to print out the sharemap (i.e. sharenum -> set of peerids) after the call to `merge_peers` in each iteration of `_loop`, we get (abbreviating each peerid to its first hex byte): ``` {0: set(['b9']), 1: set(['b9']), 2: set(['b9']), 3: set(['b9'])} {0: set(['c4']), 1: set(['0e']), 2: set(['0e']), 3: set(['c4', 'b9'])} {0: set(['8d']), 1: set(['0e', '8d']), 2: set(['0e']), 3: set(['c4', 'b9'])} ``` Presumably 'b9' is server 0. So we merge in all of the shares found for that server, but then in the same iteration of `_loop`, we move all but one of them into `homeless_shares`. I don't understand the intent of the algorithm fully, but it seems as though we're forgetting that server 0 had additional shares that if taken into account, would have increased servers_of_happiness -- even though they didn't increase it in that particular iteration.
kevan commented 2010-07-19 02:48:38 +00:00
Owner
Copy Link

The intent of the algorithm is to identify servers with more than one share, and make some of the shares on those servers homeless so that they can be redistributed to peers that might not have had any shares assigned to them yet. It is a greedy algorithm that doesn't quite do the trick in a lot of situations, and it seems like this is one of them. test_problem_layout_comment_187 is another such layout; it is marked as todo, because we hope to change the uploader to do a better job of share redistribution in 1.8. This might be a feature of #1126, or might be another ticket that hasn't been made yet.

The intent of the algorithm is to identify servers with more than one share, and make some of the shares on those servers homeless so that they can be redistributed to peers that might not have had any shares assigned to them yet. It is a greedy algorithm that doesn't quite do the trick in a lot of situations, and it seems like this is one of them. `test_problem_layout_comment_187` is another such layout; it is marked as todo, because we hope to change the uploader to do a better job of share redistribution in 1.8. This might be a feature of #1126, or might be another ticket that hasn't been made yet.
zooko commented 2010-07-21 16:00:28 +00:00
Author
Copy Link

There was a bug in the code that david-sarah was testing in comment:78663. That bug was fixed by changeset:13b5e44fbc2effd0. We should re-evaluate this ticket.

There was a bug in the code that david-sarah was testing in [comment:78663](/tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25/issues/1124#issuecomment-78663). That bug was fixed by changeset:13b5e44fbc2effd0. We should re-evaluate this ticket.
davidsarah commented 2010-07-24 00:27:33 +00:00
Owner
Copy Link

Test was committed in changeset:0f46766a51792eb5.

Test was committed in changeset:0f46766a51792eb5.
tahoe-lafs modified the milestone from undecided to 1.9.0 2010-08-12 23:33:50 +00:00
warner commented 2011-08-29 15:33:15 +00:00
Copy Link

what needs to happen to resolve this? do we have a plan to improve the share-distribution algorithm? It seems to me that there's no chance of this being a small safe fix, so I'm kicking it out of 1.9 .

what needs to happen to resolve this? do we have a plan to improve the share-distribution algorithm? It seems to me that there's no chance of this being a small safe fix, so I'm kicking it out of 1.9 .
warner modified the milestone from 1.9.0 to 1.10.0 2011-08-29 15:33:15 +00:00
davidsarah commented 2011-08-30 23:15:04 +00:00
Owner
Copy Link

Replying to warner:

what needs to happen to resolve this? do we have a plan to improve the share-distribution algorithm?

That was being done in #1382. If I understand correctly, Kevan's patches there try to implement the algorithm of ticket:1130#comment:-1, or something very much like it.

Replying to [warner](/tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25/issues/1124#issuecomment-78668): > what needs to happen to resolve this? do we have a plan to improve the share-distribution algorithm? That was being done in #1382. If I understand correctly, Kevan's patches there try to implement the algorithm of ticket:1130#[comment:-1](/tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25/issues/1124#issuecomment--1), or something very much like it.
tahoe-lafs modified the milestone from soon to 1.11.0 2013-09-01 05:29:51 +00:00
zooko commented 2014-04-29 22:46:37 +00:00
Author
Copy Link

I believe this will be fixed by #1382.

I believe this will be fixed by #1382.
warner modified the milestone from 1.10.1 to 1.11.0 2015-01-20 17:25:53 +00:00
warner commented 2016-03-22 05:02:52 +00:00
Copy Link

Milestone renamed

Milestone renamed
warner modified the milestone from 1.11.0 to 1.12.0 2016-03-22 05:02:52 +00:00
warner commented 2016-06-28 18:20:37 +00:00
Copy Link

moving most tickets from 1.12 to 1.13 so we can release 1.12 with magic-folders

moving most tickets from 1.12 to 1.13 so we can release 1.12 with magic-folders
warner modified the milestone from 1.12.0 to 1.13.0 2016-06-28 18:20:37 +00:00
exarkun commented 2020-06-30 14:45:13 +00:00
Copy Link

Moving open issues out of closed milestones.

Moving open issues out of closed milestones.
exarkun modified the milestone from 1.13.0 to 1.15.0 2020-06-30 14:45:13 +00:00
meejah commented 2021-03-30 18:40:19 +00:00
Owner
Copy Link

Ticket retargeted after milestone closed

Ticket retargeted after milestone closed
meejah modified the milestone from 1.15.0 to soon 2021-03-30 18:40:19 +00:00
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels   
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

catch-all for anything that can be fixed by writing code but isn't classified better

  
code-dirnodes

anything involving tahoe directories

  
code-encoding

immutable-file encoding format/layout, cap format, encoding/decoding algorithms

  
code-frontend

general frontend things: new user-facing interfaces, FTP/SFTP servers, FUSE-like interfaces

  
code-frontend-cli

CLI tools

  
code-frontend-ftp-sftp

   
code-frontend-magic-folder

   
code-frontend-web

webapi interfaces, user-facing "WUI" interfaces

  
code-mutable

anything involving mutable files: encoding/decoding, share format

  
code-network

Introducer, locating storage servers, establishing/maintaining connections to them

  
code-nodeadmin

node startup/shutdown, tools to create nodes, logging tools, management/monitoring tools, manhole, disk-space-limiting tools

  
code-peerselection

server selection/sorting algorithm, rebalancing code, allocation policy, swarming-download

  
code-storage

storage-server implementation, share-storage directory layout, client-to-server share transfer protocol

  
contrib

problems with non-core things that live in the source:contrib/ directory

  
critical

   
defect

   
dev-infrastructure

things that help us build Tahoe: buildbot, automated speed/memory/code-coverage tests and results-displayers, IRC channels, mailing lists, this Trac instance

  
documentation

docs items. Also use 'docs' keyword on tickets in more specific components.

  
duplicate

   
enhancement

   
fixed

   
invalid

   
major

   
minor

   
n/a

   
normal

   
operational

things involved in running a tahoe grid, external tools to monitor/maintain a grid (like "nodeadmin" but larger-scale). Was also used for issues with the allmydata.com grid.

  
packaging

setup.py script, library dependencies, binary packages, licensing, installation instructions

  
somebody else's problem

   
supercritical

   
task

   
trivial

   
unknown

Uncategorized. All tickets default to this component until someone updates it.

  
was already fixed

   
website

things about the tahoe-lafs.org website (and sometimes this Trac instance, shared with 'dev-infrastructure')

  
wontfix

   
worksforme
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
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No Milestone
soon
Assignees
Clear assignees
No Assignees
5 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format 'yyyy-mm-dd'.

No due date set.

Reference: tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25#1124
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?