Repair used default shares.happy #1212

New Issue

tahoe-lafs · 2010-09-25T14:22:55Z

eurekafag commented

2010-09-25 14:22:55 +00:00

I've tried to repair a file and got:

<class 'allmydata.interfaces.UploadUnhappinessError'>: shares could be
placed on only 5 server(s) such that any 3 of them have enough shares
to recover the file, but we were asked to place shares on at least 7
such servers. (placed all 10 shares, want to place shares on at least
7 servers such that any 3 of them have enough shares to recover the
file, sent 7 queries to 5 peers, 7 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))

Everything worked fine on 1.7.1 and shares.happy = 3 (didn't changed it after upgrade). So I did a little investigation and found the problem. It's immutable/repairer.py, line 60:

happy = upload.BaseUploadable.default_encoding_param_happy

Why do we use default happy here? It definitely should be read from
the config. I didin't dig further but replaced it with ugly hack:

happy = 3 #upload.BaseUploadable.default_encoding_param_happy

...and the problem has gone! Repairing works with just 6 servers
online.

I've tried to repair a file and got: ``` <class 'allmydata.interfaces.UploadUnhappinessError'>: shares could be placed on only 5 server(s) such that any 3 of them have enough shares to recover the file, but we were asked to place shares on at least 7 such servers. (placed all 10 shares, want to place shares on at least 7 servers such that any 3 of them have enough shares to recover the file, sent 7 queries to 5 peers, 7 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)) ``` Everything worked fine on 1.7.1 and shares.happy = 3 (didn't changed it after upgrade). So I did a little investigation and found the problem. It's immutable/repairer.py, line 60: ``` happy = upload.BaseUploadable.default_encoding_param_happy ``` Why do we use default happy here? It definitely should be read from the config. I didin't dig further but replaced it with ugly hack: ``` happy = 3 #upload.BaseUploadable.default_encoding_param_happy ``` ...and the problem has gone! Repairing works with just 6 servers online.

tahoe-lafs added the

labels 2010-09-25 14:22:55 +00:00

tahoe-lafs added this to the undecided milestone 2010-09-25 14:22:55 +00:00

kevan commented

2010-09-27 03:19:23 +00:00

We eventually decided that this should be 0 when designing and implementing Servers of Happiness; see #778, around comment 45 for the discussion on that.

If no one has claimed this ticket by Tuesday, I'll fix it.

(I'm also setting the version to 1.8.0; if I understand your mailing list message, that's what your client is running. Feel free to change it back if I'm wrong. :-)

We eventually decided that this should be 0 when designing and implementing Servers of Happiness; see [#778, around comment 45](@@http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/778#[comment:-1](/tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25/issues/1212#issuecomment--1)@@) for the discussion on that. If no one has claimed this ticket by Tuesday, I'll fix it. (I'm also setting the version to 1.8.0; if I understand your mailing list message, that's what your client is running. Feel free to change it back if I'm wrong. :-)

tahoe-lafs added

1.8.0

and removed

1.8β

labels 2010-09-27 03:19:23 +00:00

eurekafag commented

2010-09-27 05:29:29 +00:00

Yes, it's 1.8.0 but there was no such a version in a drop-down list when I created the ticket. This issue is important because it breaks the repair feature on small grids with <7 nodes online. And even more important because repairing is needed more often on such small networks.

kevan commented

2010-09-28 04:21:33 +00:00

Attachment 1212.dpatch (3258 bytes) added

**Attachment** 1212.dpatch (3258 bytes) added

1212.dpatch

3.2 KiB

kevan commented

2010-09-28 04:22:36 +00:00

I think that the patch in 1212.dpatch fixes this issue.

I think that the patch in [1212.dpatch](/tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25/attachments/000078ac-618d-cdfb-0cd9-5eeaa15c03d8) fixes this issue.

eurekafag commented

2010-09-28 07:28:07 +00:00

Attachment 1212.patch (2810 bytes) added

**Attachment** 1212.patch (2810 bytes) added

1212.patch

2.7 KiB

eurekafag commented

2010-09-28 07:29:29 +00:00

Why do you provide patches in dpatch format? It's debian only and I didn't find sources in google to compile it for OpenSuSE (which is RPM-based). So I patched by hand and here is unified diff patch: 1212.patch

Why do you provide patches in dpatch format? It's debian only and I didn't find sources in google to compile it for [OpenSu](wiki/OpenSu)SE (which is RPM-based). So I patched by hand and here is unified diff patch: [1212.patch](/tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25/attachments/000078ac-618d-cdfb-0cd9-b3ba1ef420ff)

eurekafag commented

2010-09-28 07:46:25 +00:00

Looks like this version works, thanks.

zooko commented

2010-09-28 13:55:22 +00:00

Replying to [eurekafag]comment:6:

Why do you provide patches in dpatch format? It's debian only and I didn't find sources in google to compile it for OpenSuSE (which is RPM-based). So I patched by hand and here is unified diff patch: 1212.patch

That was actually a darcs patch rather than a debian patch. I didn't realize that "dpatch" stood for "debian patch". I've updated wiki/Patches to suggest that people named their darcs patches thing.darcspatch.txt instead of thing.dpatch.

Replying to [eurekafag]comment:6: > Why do you provide patches in dpatch format? It's debian only and I didn't find sources in google to compile it for [OpenSu](wiki/OpenSu)SE (which is RPM-based). So I patched by hand and here is unified diff patch: [1212.patch](/tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25/attachments/000078ac-618d-cdfb-0cd9-b3ba1ef420ff) That was actually a *d*arcs patch rather than a *d*ebian patch. I didn't realize that "dpatch" stood for "debian patch". I've updated [wiki/Patches](wiki/Patches) to suggest that people named their darcs patches `thing.darcspatch.txt` instead of `thing.dpatch`.

zooko commented

2010-09-29 05:05:22 +00:00

Reviewed and applied in changeset:ec4f87a98c034dac, thanks!
By the way, I think we should do more work here. This patch corrects the regression from v1.7.1 to v1.8.0 (introduced in changeset:797828f47fe1aa44), in that v1.7.1 would repair with a servers-of-happiness (H) of 0 and v1.8.0 would repair with an H of 7. While I agree that this was a regression and that we should put it back to 0, I actually think that the old behavior of 0 was wrong and that we should have been using "currently configured H" instead!

That is: if you have configured your servers-of-happiness H to be 3, like eurekafag did, and the number of servers currently reachable on your grid is 2, and you do a repair, then I think the repair should stop with an explicit error message instead of proceeding and then giving you a report at the end that mentions (if you know how to read it) that it actually only put the shares onto 2 servers.

(In other words, I think I was wrong when I suggested letting repairer use H==0 in comment:72461. Or at least, what we did then was to keep the behavior of repairer from v1.6 when we made v1.7, but what I'm suggesting to do now is improve that behavior for the next release.)

Kevan, David-Sarah, Brian, eurekafag: do you agree? If so, let's open a new ticket saying to make the H used by repair be the same as the H that would be used by an upload. (Also in the new code we should make the H value be a parameter passed to the repairer instead of letting the repairer query the node-wide configuration. This is in keeping with CodingStandards regarding configuration and will facilitate some possible future work where people can pass explicit K, M, and H for a given upload or repair, e.g. as options to the tahoe put command line or optional fields in the WUI.

Reviewed and applied in changeset:ec4f87a98c034dac, thanks! By the way, I think we should do more work here. This patch corrects the regression from v1.7.1 to v1.8.0 (introduced in changeset:797828f47fe1aa44), in that v1.7.1 would repair with a servers-of-happiness (`H`) of `0` and v1.8.0 would repair with an `H` of `7`. While I agree that this was a regression and that we should put it back to `0`, I actually think that the old behavior of `0` was wrong and that we should have been using "currently configured `H`" instead! That is: if you have configured your servers-of-happiness `H` to be 3, like eurekafag did, and the number of servers currently reachable on your grid is 2, and you do a repair, then I think the repair should stop with an explicit error message instead of proceeding and then giving you a report at the end that mentions (if you know how to read it) that it actually only put the shares onto 2 servers. (In other words, I think I was wrong when I suggested letting repairer use `H==0` in [comment:72461](/tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25/issues/778#issuecomment-72461). Or at least, what we did then was to keep the behavior of repairer from v1.6 when we made v1.7, but what I'm suggesting to do now is improve that behavior for the next release.) Kevan, David-Sarah, Brian, eurekafag: do you agree? If so, let's open a new ticket saying to make the `H` used by repair be the same as the `H` that would be used by an upload. (Also in the new code we should make the `H` value be a parameter passed to the repairer instead of letting the repairer query the node-wide configuration. This is in keeping with [CodingStandards regarding configuration](wiki/CodingStandards#configuration) and will facilitate some possible future work where people can pass explicit `K`, `M`, and `H` for a given upload or repair, e.g. as options to the `tahoe put` command line or optional fields in the WUI.

zooko added the

fixed

label 2010-09-29 05:05:22 +00:00

zooko modified the milestone from undecided to soon

2010-09-29 05:05:22 +00:00

zooko closed this issue

2010-09-29 05:05:22 +00:00

zooko commented

2010-09-29 05:11:23 +00:00

Just testing syntax highlighting by uploading an attachment named "thing.darcspatch.txt"...

zooko commented

2010-09-29 05:12:24 +00:00

Attachment 1212.darcspatch.txt (3258 bytes) added

**Attachment** 1212.darcspatch.txt (3258 bytes) added

1212.darcspatch.txt

3.2 KiB

zooko commented

2010-09-29 05:14:57 +00:00

Attachment 1212again.darcspatch.txt (3258 bytes) added

**Attachment** 1212again.darcspatch.txt (3258 bytes) added

1212again.darcspatch.txt

3.2 KiB

zooko commented

2010-09-29 05:18:25 +00:00

Attachment 1212.darcs.patch (3258 bytes) added

**Attachment** 1212.darcs.patch (3258 bytes) added

1212.darcs.patch

3.2 KiB

eurekafag commented

2010-09-29 07:06:15 +00:00

I do agree that zero happiness should be changed to H. There is no need to create a ticket because I've mentioned that already:
It definitely should be read from the config.
The temporary solution is nice but not complete to close this ticket.

I do agree that zero happiness should be changed to H. There is no need to create a ticket because I've mentioned that already: `It definitely should be read from the config.` The temporary solution is nice but not complete to close this ticket.

kevan commented

2010-09-29 20:12:23 +00:00

If we do that, we lose the property that the repairer will always try to place whichever shares are missing onto some storage servers, even if the end result isn't optimally distributed.

If I have a cron job that does a deep repair of my rootcap, and the rootcap or some other important dircap or filecap only has k or k+1 shares available, and it is stored on a grid with a lot of churn, I probably care more about the fact that there are more than a few shares of that cap around than I do about where they are, and I certainly wouldn't want the repairer to not even bother generating new ones because it couldn't satisfy my distribution criteria; IOW, I'm better off with more shares that are poorly distributed than I am with no repair action (I'm oversimplifying, and it depends on the specific situation, but having more shares will make things better in some situations and generally won't make things worse, AFAICT without doing the math).

On the other hand, I think that the repairer should definitely tell the user whether the file is distributed correctly or not, and an exception message certainly does that. I can also make my node's repair go for broke with share regeneration by changing the value of happiness in tahoe.cfg to be 0. This is a chore, but it means that people who really want the repairer to try to place new shares regardless of where can still get that behavior.

Maybe the best approach is to fix #614 with this in mind. The repairer could regenerate and try to place all of the missing shares, as it does now, but also tell the caller (in the post repair results) whether the repair was ultimately successful or not based on how the shares are distributed, using the client's configured happiness value for that check.

Edit: I didn't read Zooko's comment closely enough. Is what I describe in the third paragraph what the repairer already does? If so, what don't you like about that?

If we do that, we lose the property that the repairer will always try to place whichever shares are missing onto *some* storage servers, even if the end result isn't optimally distributed. If I have a cron job that does a deep repair of my rootcap, and the rootcap or some other important dircap or filecap only has `k` or `k+1` shares available, and it is stored on a grid with a lot of churn, I probably care more about the fact that there are more than a few shares of that cap around than I do about where they are, and I certainly wouldn't want the repairer to not even bother generating new ones because it couldn't satisfy my distribution criteria; IOW, I'm better off with more shares that are poorly distributed than I am with no repair action (I'm oversimplifying, and it depends on the specific situation, but having more shares will make things better in some situations and generally won't make things worse, AFAICT without doing the math). On the other hand, I think that the repairer should definitely tell the user whether the file is distributed correctly or not, and an exception message certainly does that. I can also make my node's repair go for broke with share regeneration by changing the value of happiness in `tahoe.cfg` to be 0. This is a chore, but it means that people who really want the repairer to try to place new shares regardless of where can still get that behavior. Maybe the best approach is to fix #614 with this in mind. The repairer could regenerate and try to place all of the missing shares, as it does now, but also tell the caller (in the post repair results) whether the repair was ultimately successful or not based on how the shares are distributed, using the client's configured happiness value for that check. Edit: I didn't read Zooko's comment closely enough. Is what I describe in the third paragraph what the repairer already does? If so, what don't you like about that?

zooko commented

2010-09-30 01:17:35 +00:00

Replying to kevan:

If we do that, we lose the property that the repairer will always try to place whichever shares are missing onto some storage servers, even if the end result isn't optimally distributed.

Doesn't this mean that H is effectively 0 for you when you are doing this?

I can also make my node's repair go for broke with share regeneration by changing the value of happiness in tahoe.cfg to be 0. This is a chore, but it means that people who really want the repairer to try to place new shares regardless of where can still get that behavior.

Right. If you want this behavior, set H==0. If you want the other behavior (abort the repair) set H to something else. With the v1.7.1 behavior and the current trunk behavior (since 20100927200102-b8d28-9111a341188a4264e5070f91b52364a2addcb3dc), setting H in your tahoe.cfg has no effect on repairer behavior—repairer always acts as though H==0.

Maybe the best approach is to fix #614 with this in mind. The repairer could regenerate and try to place all of the missing shares, as it does now, but also tell the caller (in the post repair results) whether the repair was ultimately successful or not based on how the shares are distributed, using the client's configured happiness value for that check.

Oh, good catch. Yes, if we fix #614 then repairer would be using H (during the check/verify step) to determine whether or not to trigger a repair. Once it triggered the repairer, then it could also use H to determine whether to abort the repair, or it could instead treat H as effectively 0 for the purpose of the repair.

Now that I've thought about it more and read your comments, Kevan, I think I agree that we should have the latter behavior, as long as we fix #614 so that the output reported by the repairer can be easily understood by the user as indicating "unhealthy" when the servers of happiness is less than H.

Oh, in fact, what I really want is for repairer to proceed and to do its best even if it knows that it can't reach servers of happiness greater than or equal to H (instead of aborting the way uploader does), but then to return a failure result saying that it wasn't able to repair the file back to health.

Does that make sense?

Okay, I'm done changing my mind for the moment. What do you think?

Edit: I didn't read Zooko's comment closely enough. Is what I describe in the third paragraph what the repairer already does? If so, what don't you like about that?

Sorry: I don't understand this question. Hopefully I answered it above.

Replying to [kevan](/tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25/issues/1212#issuecomment-80265): > If we do that, we lose the property that the repairer will always try to place whichever shares are missing onto *some* storage servers, even if the end result isn't optimally distributed. Doesn't this mean that `H` is effectively `0` for you when you are doing this? > I can also make my node's repair go for broke with share regeneration by changing the value of happiness in `tahoe.cfg` to be 0. This is a chore, but it means that people who really want the repairer to try to place new shares regardless of where can still get that behavior. Right. If you want this behavior, set `H==0`. If you want the other behavior (abort the repair) set `H` to something else. With the v1.7.1 behavior and the current trunk behavior (since 20100927200102-b8d28-9111a341188a4264e5070f91b52364a2addcb3dc), setting `H` in your `tahoe.cfg` has no effect on repairer behavior—repairer always acts as though `H==0`. > Maybe the best approach is to fix #614 with this in mind. The repairer could regenerate and try to place all of the missing shares, as it does now, but also tell the caller (in the post repair results) whether the repair was ultimately successful or not based on how the shares are distributed, using the client's configured happiness value for that check. Oh, good catch. Yes, if we fix #614 then repairer would be using `H` (during the check/verify step) to determine whether or not to trigger a repair. Once it triggered the repairer, then it could *also* use `H` to determine whether to abort the repair, or it could instead treat `H` as effectively `0` for the purpose of the repair. Now that I've thought about it more and read your comments, Kevan, I think I agree that we should have the latter behavior, as long as we fix #614 so that the output reported by the repairer can be easily understood by the user as indicating "unhealthy" when the servers of happiness is less than `H`. Oh, in fact, what I *really* want is for repairer to *proceed* and to do its best even if it knows that it can't reach servers of happiness greater than or equal to `H` (instead of aborting the way uploader does), but then to return a failure result saying that it wasn't able to repair the file back to health. Does that make sense? Okay, I'm done changing my mind for the moment. What do you think? > Edit: I didn't read Zooko's comment closely enough. Is what I describe in the third paragraph what the repairer already does? If so, what don't you like about that? Sorry: I don't understand this question. Hopefully I answered it above.

davidsarah commented

2010-10-01 01:08:55 +00:00

This is how I think the repairer should work (I think this is violently agreeing with Zooko's comment:13, but with more detail):

let k and N be the shares-needed and total number of shares for this file, and let H be the happiness threshold read from tahoe.cfg.
if there are fewer than k connected servers, report that the repair failed completely.
construct a server map for this file by asking all connected servers which shares they have. (In the case of a mutable file, construct a server map for the latest retrievable version.)
construct a maximum matching M : server -> share, of size |M|, for this file (preferring to include servers that are earlier on the permuted list when there is a choice).
while |M| < N, and we have not tried to put shares on all connected servers:
- pick a share not in M, and the server not in M that is next on the permuted list (wrapping around if necessary). Try to extend M by putting that share onto that server.
if |M| < k, report that the repair failed completely. If k <= |M| < H, report that the file is retrievable but unhealthy. In any case report what |M| is.

(The while loop should be done in parallel, with up to N - |M| outstanding requests.)

This is how I think the repairer should work (I *think* this is violently agreeing with Zooko's comment:13, but with more detail): * let k and N be the shares-needed and total number of shares for this file, and let H be the happiness threshold read from tahoe.cfg. * if there are fewer than k connected servers, report that the repair failed completely. * construct a server map for this file by asking all connected servers which shares they have. (In the case of a mutable file, construct a server map for the latest retrievable version.) * construct a maximum matching M : server -> share, of size |M|, for this file (preferring to include servers that are earlier on the permuted list when there is a choice). * while |M| < N, and we have not tried to put shares on all connected servers: * pick a share not in M, and the server not in M that is next on the permuted list (wrapping around if necessary). Try to extend M by putting that share onto that server. * if |M| < k, report that the repair failed completely. If k <= |M| < H, report that the file is retrievable but unhealthy. In any case report what |M| is. (The while loop should be done in parallel, with up to N - |M| outstanding requests.)

zooko removed the

fixed

label 2010-10-01 04:20:24 +00:00

zooko reopened this issue

2010-10-01 04:20:24 +00:00

zooko modified the milestone from soon to 1.8.1

2010-10-07 22:04:24 +00:00

kevan commented

2010-10-13 23:12:49 +00:00

comment:80267 seems sensible to me.

I'm not sure if milestone 1.8.1 is about the little regression that I submitted a patch for, or the broader, likely to be fixed by #614 issue of how the repairer should work. If the latter, then 1.8.1 might be a little optimistic; fixing #614 correctly will require (unless I'm missing something obvious) a decent chunk of engineering, since the immutable file repairer is currently very simple. I would at least be more confident in my ability to get #614 done by 1.9.0 than by 1.8.1.

[comment:80267](/tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25/issues/1212#issuecomment-80267) seems sensible to me. I'm not sure if milestone 1.8.1 is about the little regression that I submitted a patch for, or the broader, likely to be fixed by #614 issue of how the repairer should work. If the latter, then 1.8.1 might be a little optimistic; fixing #614 correctly will require (unless I'm missing something obvious) a decent chunk of engineering, since the immutable file repairer is currently very simple. I would at least be more confident in my ability to get #614 done by 1.9.0 than by 1.8.1.

zooko commented

2010-10-14 02:55:55 +00:00

Replying to davidsarah:

This is how I think the repairer should work (I think this is violently agreeing with Zooko's comment:13, but with more detail):
...

if there are fewer than k connected servers, report that the repair failed completely.

Why this step?

Replying to [davidsarah](/tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25/issues/1212#issuecomment-80267): > This is how I think the repairer should work (I *think* this is violently agreeing with Zooko's comment:13, but with more detail): ... > * if there are fewer than k connected servers, report that the repair failed completely. Why this step?

davidsarah commented

2010-10-14 02:57:54 +00:00

Replying to [zooko]comment:19:

Replying to davidsarah:

This is how I think the repairer should work (I think this is violently agreeing with Zooko's comment:13, but with more detail):
...

if there are fewer than k connected servers, report that the repair failed completely.

Why this step?

Just a shortcut; this case would fail in the last step anyway.

Replying to davidsarah:
[...]

while |M| < N, and we have not tried to put shares on all connected servers:

pick a share not in M, and the server not in M that is next on the permuted list (wrapping around if necessary). Try to extend M by putting that share onto that server.

A small refinement of this step would be that once |M| >= H, we could allow placing the remaining N-H shares on servers that are already in the matching, if we're unable to place them on servers that are not in the matching.

Replying to [zooko]comment:19: > Replying to [davidsarah](/tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25/issues/1212#issuecomment-80267): > > This is how I think the repairer should work (I *think* this is violently agreeing with Zooko's comment:13, but with more detail): > ... > > * if there are fewer than k connected servers, report that the repair failed completely. > > Why this step? Just a shortcut; this case would fail in the last step anyway. Replying to [davidsarah](/tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25/issues/1212#issuecomment-80267): [...] > * while |M| < N, and we have not tried to put shares on all connected servers: > * pick a share not in M, and the server not in M that is next on the permuted list (wrapping around if necessary). Try to extend M by putting that share onto that server. A small refinement of this step would be that once |M| >= H, we could allow placing the remaining N-H shares on servers that are already in the matching, if we're unable to place them on servers that are not in the matching.

zooko commented

2010-10-14 02:58:58 +00:00

Replying to davidsarah:

if |M| < k, report that the repair failed completely. If k <= |M| < H, report that the file is retrievable but unhealthy. In any case report what |M| is.

Okay, but why this one?

We definitely need to classify health into several types: unrecoverable, 100% (|M|>=N), and servers-of-happiness-satisfying (|M|>=H) (needs a better name! "healthy" ?).

Do we also need another type to show that servers_of_happiness >= K?

Replying to [davidsarah](/tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25/issues/1212#issuecomment-80267): > * if |M| < k, report that the repair failed completely. If k <= |M| < H, report that the file is retrievable but unhealthy. In any case report what |M| is. Okay, but why this one? We definitely need to classify health into several types: *unrecoverable*, *100%* (`|M|`>=`N`), and *servers-of-happiness-satisfying* (`|M|`>=`H`) (needs a better name! *"healthy"* ?). Do we also need another type to show that `servers_of_happiness` >= `K`?

zooko commented

2010-10-14 03:10:36 +00:00

I think we should distinguish between levels of happiness at which the uploader or repairer will

(a) abort the upload or repair,
(b) treat the file as "unhealthy" which means
(b.1) a check-and-repair will trigger the repair step and
(b.2) a check results or a repair results will show the file (with clear, noticeable presentation) as being in danger ),
(c) treat the file as "perfectly healthy" which means that a repair would not make any change to it.

One of the questions in this ticket -- comment:80274 -- is whether (a) should trigger when |M| < K or not. Sometimes people would rather that the uploader/repairer get the file out there, even if all the shares are on a single server! Other times people might prefer that the uploader/repairer avoid wasting bandwidth on that and instead stop and raise the alarm.

#614 is all about whether (b) should trigger when |M| < N (current behavior) or |M| < H (proposed new behavior).

I think we should distinguish between levels of happiness at which the uploader or repairer will * (a) abort the upload or repair, * (b) treat the file as *"unhealthy"* which means * (b.1) a check-and-repair will trigger the repair step and * (b.2) a check results or a repair results will show the file (with clear, noticeable presentation) as being in danger ), * (c) treat the file as *"perfectly healthy"* which means that a repair would not make any change to it. One of the questions in this ticket -- [comment:80274](/tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25/issues/1212#issuecomment-80274) -- is whether (a) should trigger when `|M| < K` or not. Sometimes people would rather that the uploader/repairer get the file out there, even if all the shares are on a single server! Other times people might prefer that the uploader/repairer avoid wasting bandwidth on that and instead stop and raise the alarm. #614 is all about whether (b) should trigger when `|M| < N` (current behavior) or `|M| < H` (proposed new behavior).

zooko commented

2010-10-14 03:11:59 +00:00

Oh, what I just proposed in comment:80275 is a significant new behavior if we allow the level of happiness that triggers (a) to be different than the level of happiness that triggers (b)! Currently uploader/repairer aborts the upload or repair if it knows that it cannot achieve "health", i.e. |M| >= H. There are even unit tests to ensure that buildbot will go red if uploader/repairer proceeds to do an upload when it can't reach that level of happiness. :-)

Oh, what I just proposed in [comment:80275](/tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25/issues/1212#issuecomment-80275) is a significant new behavior if we allow the level of happiness that triggers (a) to be different than the level of happiness that triggers (b)! Currently uploader/repairer aborts the upload or repair if it knows that it cannot achieve *"health"*, i.e. `|M| >= H`. There are even unit tests to ensure that buildbot will go red if uploader/repairer proceeds to do an upload when it can't reach that level of happiness. :-)

davidsarah commented

2010-10-14 03:21:26 +00:00

Ah, I confusingly said "|M| < k" when I actually meant to say "the file is not retrievable". (It might be retrievable if there are >= k shares, but on less than k distinct servers.)

I think we should only abort a repair if the file is not retrievable (in which case we can't repair it anyway).

Ah, I confusingly said "|M| < k" when I actually meant to say "the file is not retrievable". (It might be retrievable if there are >= k shares, but on less than k distinct servers.) I think we should only *abort* a repair if the file is not retrievable (in which case we can't repair it anyway).

davidsarah commented

2010-10-14 03:24:59 +00:00

Hmm, why shouldn't a check-and-repair always try to restore a file to happiness N? The only reason I can think of is that it might result in redundant shares if there are a few servers that are sometimes disconnected, but wouldn't that tend to stablise after a few repair cycles?

zooko commented

2010-10-14 04:40:38 +00:00

I guess something that I haven't made up my mind about yet is how repair jobs (either tahoe repair command on the cli or clicking on the "check-and-repair" button on the wui) should handle the case that the upload/repair fails, or partially fails on some of the files.

Should it proceed to completion, generate a report saying to what degree each attempt to repair a file succeeded, and exit with a "success" code (i.e. exit code 0 from tahoe repair), or should it abort the attempt to repair this one file, and should it also abort any other file repair attempts from the current deep-repair job?

For example, suppose you ask it to repair a single file with K=3, H=7, N=10, and it finds out that there are only two storage servers currently connected. One storage server has 3 shares and the other has 0. Then should it abort the upload immediately? Or should it upload a few shares (3?) to the second storage server which currently has none, and then report to you that the file is still unhealthy?

Here is one set of principles to answer this question (not sure if this is the best set):

Idempotence if you run an upload-or-repair job, and it does some work (uploads some shares), and then you run it again when nothing has changed among the servers (there are no servers that joined or left and none of them acquired or lost shares), then the second run will not upload any shares.
Forward progress if you run a repair job (not necessarily an upload job!), and it is possible for it to make |M| greater than it was before, then it will do so.

If we use these principles then we give up on an alternate principle:

Network efficiency if you run an upload or repair job, and it is impossible for it to make |M| >= H, then it does not use any bulk network bandwidth. (Also, if it looks like it is possible at first, but after it has started uploading then one of the servers fails and it becomes impossible, then it aborts right then and does not use any more of your network bandwidth.)

I think people (including me) intuitively wanted principle 3 for uploads, but now that we are thinking about repairs instead of uploads we intuitively want principle 2.

I guess something that I haven't made up my mind about yet is how repair jobs (either `tahoe repair` command on the cli or clicking on the "check-and-repair" button on the wui) should handle the case that the upload/repair fails, or partially fails on some of the files. Should it proceed to completion, generate a report saying to what degree each attempt to repair a file succeeded, and exit with a "success" code (i.e. exit code 0 from `tahoe repair`), or should it abort the attempt to repair this one file, and should it also abort any other file repair attempts from the current deep-repair job? For example, suppose you ask it to repair a single file with `K=3, H=7, N=10`, and it finds out that there are only two storage servers currently connected. One storage server has 3 shares and the other has 0. Then should it abort the upload immediately? Or should it upload a few shares (3?) to the second storage server which currently has none, and then report to you that the file is still unhealthy? Here is one set of principles to answer this question (not sure if this is the best set): 1. *Idempotence* if you run an upload-or-repair job, and it does some work (uploads some shares), and then you run it again when nothing has changed among the servers (there are no servers that joined or left and none of them acquired or lost shares), then the second run will not upload any shares. 2. *Forward progress* if you run a repair job (not necessarily an upload job!), and it is possible for it to make `|M|` greater than it was before, then it will do so. If we use these principles then we give up on an alternate principle: 3. *Network efficiency* if you run an upload or repair job, and it is impossible for it to make `|M| >= H`, then it does not use any bulk network bandwidth. (Also, if it looks like it is possible at first, but after it has started uploading then one of the servers fails and it becomes impossible, then it aborts right then and does not use any *more* of your network bandwidth.) I think people (including me) intuitively wanted principle 3 for uploads, but now that we are thinking about repairs instead of uploads we intuitively want principle 2.

zooko commented

2010-10-14 04:53:40 +00:00

One possibility would be to make the behavior of uploader different than of repairer. Perhaps people prefer for their initial uploads to fail quickly and network-efficiently (principle 3) if they won't be able to achieve happiness level of H, but prefer for their repairs to proceed and do their best (principle 2). However, making the two behave differently would make things more complicated in the source code and would also make things more complicated in the usage, because principle 1 -- idempotence -- would not apply to "first upload and then repair" or "first repair and then upload". Sometimes an upload would abort itself and return failure but then a subsequent repair would do a lot of work to make progress, or a repair would do a lot of work to make progress but then an upload would abort itself and return failure.

Unless we are really sure that we need to support two different modes, I would prefer to err on the side of simplicity and find a mode that is good enough for both upload and repair. One good way to estimate "complication in usage" is to think how much documentation we would need to write to explain the different behavior of upload and repair in the different cases. :-)

One possibility would be to make the behavior of uploader different than of repairer. Perhaps people prefer for their initial uploads to fail quickly and network-efficiently (principle 3) if they won't be able to achieve happiness level of `H`, but prefer for their repairs to proceed and do their best (principle 2). However, making the two behave differently would make things more complicated in the source code and would also make things more complicated in the usage, because principle 1 -- *idempotence* -- would not apply to "first upload and then repair" or "first repair and then upload". Sometimes an upload would abort itself and return failure but then a subsequent repair would do a lot of work to make progress, or a repair would do a lot of work to make progress but then an upload would abort itself and return failure. Unless we are really sure that we need to support two different modes, I would prefer to err on the side of simplicity and find a mode that is good enough for both upload and repair. One good way to estimate "complication in usage" is to think how much documentation we would need to write to explain the different behavior of upload and repair in the different cases. :-)

davidsarah commented

2010-10-14 05:01:11 +00:00

Replying to zooko:

One possibility would be to make the behavior of uploader different than of repairer. Perhaps people prefer for their initial uploads to fail quickly and network-efficiently (principle 3) if they won't be able to achieve happiness level of H, but prefer for their repairs to proceed and do their best (principle 2). However, making the two behave differently would make things more complicated in the source code and would also make things more complicated in the usage, because principle 1 -- idempotence -- would not apply to "first upload and then repair" or "first repair and then upload". Sometimes an upload would abort itself and return failure but then a subsequent repair would do a lot of work to make progress, or a repair would do a lot of work to make progress but then an upload would abort itself and return failure.

Unless we are really sure that we need to support two different modes, I would prefer to err on the side of simplicity and find a mode that is good enough for both upload and repair.

I'm not sure that two different modes would add much complexity. Almost all of the code would be shared, and the upload/repair flag would just enable the fast abort in the upload case.

Replying to [zooko](/tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25/issues/1212#issuecomment-80280): > One possibility would be to make the behavior of uploader different than of repairer. Perhaps people prefer for their initial uploads to fail quickly and network-efficiently (principle 3) if they won't be able to achieve happiness level of `H`, but prefer for their repairs to proceed and do their best (principle 2). However, making the two behave differently would make things more complicated in the source code and would also make things more complicated in the usage, because principle 1 -- *idempotence* -- would not apply to "first upload and then repair" or "first repair and then upload". Sometimes an upload would abort itself and return failure but then a subsequent repair would do a lot of work to make progress, or a repair would do a lot of work to make progress but then an upload would abort itself and return failure. > > Unless we are really sure that we need to support two different modes, I would prefer to err on the side of simplicity and find a mode that is good enough for both upload and repair. I'm not sure that two different modes would add much complexity. Almost all of the code would be shared, and the upload/repair flag would just enable the fast abort in the upload case.

zooko commented

2010-10-29 06:03:34 +00:00

At some point, possibly in email to tahoe-dev, davidsarah convinced me that two modes was appropriate because people who are uploading a file are not yet committed to the file being up, so it is better for them to abort in case of unsatisfying distribution, but people who are repairing an existing file are already committed to the file being out there, so it is better for them to do your best to make some improvement even in case of unsatisfying distribution.

zooko commented

2010-10-31 04:30:42 +00:00

Okay, I've now re-read this long, confusing ticket and I now agree that the patch Kevan already applied to make H be 0 during repair is correct. This means that repair processes always try to make progress (principle 2 from comment:80279) instead of trying to conserve network bandwidth (principle 3 from comment:80279), but upload processes (which aren't repairs) choose principle 3 instead of principle 2.

Also, yes, we really ought to fix #614 by defining healthy as "satisfying the servers-of-happiness level that my user has chosen". :-)

I don't think there's anything else to do but add a source:NEWS entry and then we can close this ticket. Does anyone else who is reading this agree?

Okay, I've now re-read this long, confusing ticket and I now agree that the patch Kevan already applied to make `H` be `0` during repair is correct. This means that repair processes always try to make progress (principle 2 from [comment:80279](/tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25/issues/1212#issuecomment-80279)) instead of trying to conserve network bandwidth (principle 3 from [comment:80279](/tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25/issues/1212#issuecomment-80279)), but upload processes (which aren't repairs) choose principle 3 instead of principle 2. Also, yes, we really ought to fix #614 by defining `healthy` as "satisfying the servers-of-happiness level that my user has chosen". :-) I don't think there's anything else to do but add a source:NEWS entry and then we can close this ticket. Does anyone else who is reading this agree?

davidsarah commented

2010-10-31 05:00:08 +00:00

Replying to zooko:

Okay, I've now re-read this long, confusing ticket and I now agree that the patch Kevan already applied to make H be 0 during repair is correct. This means that repair processes always try to make progress (principle 2 from comment:80279) instead of trying to conserve network bandwidth (principle 3 from comment:80279), but upload processes (which aren't repairs) choose principle 3 instead of principle 2.

Also, yes, we really ought to fix #614 by defining healthy as "satisfying the servers-of-happiness level that my user has chosen". :-)

I don't think there's anything else to do but add a source:NEWS entry and then we can close this ticket. Does anyone else who is reading this agree?

Yes. There are still things we want to fix about repair (at least #614, #1124, and giving more complete information about the health of a file after repair), but let's address those for v1.9.0.

Replying to [zooko](/tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25/issues/1212#issuecomment-80283): > Okay, I've now re-read this long, confusing ticket and I now agree that the patch Kevan already applied to make `H` be `0` during repair is correct. This means that repair processes always try to make progress (principle 2 from [comment:80279](/tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25/issues/1212#issuecomment-80279)) instead of trying to conserve network bandwidth (principle 3 from [comment:80279](/tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25/issues/1212#issuecomment-80279)), but upload processes (which aren't repairs) choose principle 3 instead of principle 2. > > Also, yes, we really ought to fix #614 by defining `healthy` as "satisfying the servers-of-happiness level that my user has chosen". :-) > > I don't think there's anything else to do but add a source:NEWS entry and then we can close this ticket. Does anyone else who is reading this agree? Yes. There are still things we want to fix about repair (at least #614, #1124, and giving more complete information about the health of a file after repair), but let's address those for v1.9.0.

david-sarah@jacaranda.org commented

2010-10-31 06:14:06 +00:00

In changeset:cb764da0edc2b161:

NEWS: entries for #1190 and #1212, and minor cleanups. refs #1190, #1212

In changeset:cb764da0edc2b161: ``` NEWS: entries for #1190 and #1212, and minor cleanups. refs #1190, #1212 ```

tahoe-lafs added the

fixed

label 2010-11-02 02:29:42 +00:00

tahoe-lafs closed this issue

2010-11-02 02:29:42 +00:00

davidsarah commented

2011-01-05 03:53:21 +00:00

Replying to davidsarah:

construct a maximum matching M : server -> share, of size |M|, for this file (preferring to include servers that are earlier on the permuted list when there is a choice).

and preferring to include servers that have least available space (especially those that are full), since that will allow uploads to succeed in more cases by placing new shares on servers that have available space.

Replying to [davidsarah](/tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25/issues/1212#issuecomment-80267): > * construct a maximum matching M : server -> share, of size |M|, for this file (preferring to include servers that are earlier on the permuted list when there is a choice). and preferring to include servers that have least available space (especially those that are full), since that will allow uploads to succeed in more cases by placing new shares on servers that have available space.

zooko commented

2011-06-08 13:52:15 +00:00

Diego "sickness" Righi is dissatisfied with this solution. He has 10 storage servers, and sets M=10 and H=10. His desire is that he never gets more than one share on one storage server. Current uploader does what he wants -- it never places more than one share on one storage server. But repairer does what he doesn't want -- if fewer than 10 storage servers are available then repairer uploads extra shares to some of the available servers.

To my way of thinking, uploading extra shares is making the file more available. For example if you have 8 servers with 1 share each and 1 server is 2 shares (and K=5), then if you lost the first five of your servers (each of which had 1 share) you could still recover your file from the remaining four servers. If instead you have 9 servers with one share each, K=5, and you lost the first five of your servers then the file would be lost.

So, now I'm going to stop here and ask sickness: does this cause you to change your mind so that now you want repairer to upload a second share to one of the existing servers in the case that there are only 9 servers available? Or do you still prefer that it should not do that?

Diego "sickness" Righi is dissatisfied with this solution. He has 10 storage servers, and sets M=10 and H=10. His desire is that he never gets more than one share on one storage server. Current uploader does what he wants -- it never places more than one share on one storage server. But repairer does what he doesn't want -- if fewer than 10 storage servers are available then repairer uploads extra shares to some of the available servers. To my way of thinking, uploading extra shares is making the file more available. For example if you have 8 servers with 1 share each and 1 server is 2 shares (and `K=5`), then if you lost the first five of your servers (each of which had 1 share) you could still recover your file from the remaining four servers. If instead you have 9 servers with one share each, `K=5`, and you lost the first five of your servers then the file would be lost. So, now I'm going to stop here and ask sickness: does this cause you to change your mind so that now you *want* repairer to upload a second share to one of the existing servers in the case that there are only 9 servers available? Or do you still prefer that it should not do that?

zooko removed the

fixed

label 2011-06-08 13:52:15 +00:00

zooko reopened this issue

2011-06-08 13:52:15 +00:00

gdt commented

2011-06-08 14:05:05 +00:00

I think sickness's desire for not having more than one share on a server blurs two things. One is having adequate redundancy, and a behavior of adding shares s.t. a server has two (in the 9 servers present case) helps. But, when the 10th server is back on line, if it doesn't have a share, then repair should consider the file unhealthy and place a share on the 10th server such that 10 servers have a distinct share. Further the lease on the extra share probably shouldn't be renewed.

If sickness also desires some form of storage efficiency, to avoid placing the 2nd share, then I think it's a misuse of servers-of-happiness and there should be some max-shares-per-server config, defaulting to infinite.

This all becomes difficult in the middle, when you have a 3/10 encoding and 3 or 4 servers. You want to set H to 3 or 4, but a share distribution of 7/1/1/1 isn't really ok - you want it to be more balanced. But I think we should figure out if this is a a reliability concern or an efficiency concern and treat them separately.

I think sickness's desire for not having more than one share on a server blurs two things. One is having adequate redundancy, and a behavior of adding shares s.t. a server has two (in the 9 servers present case) helps. But, when the 10th server is back on line, if it doesn't have a share, then repair should consider the file unhealthy and place a share on the 10th server such that 10 servers have a distinct share. Further the lease on the extra share probably shouldn't be renewed. If sickness also desires some form of storage efficiency, to avoid placing the 2nd share, then I think it's a misuse of servers-of-happiness and there should be some max-shares-per-server config, defaulting to infinite. This all becomes difficult in the middle, when you have a 3/10 encoding and 3 or 4 servers. You want to set H to 3 or 4, but a share distribution of 7/1/1/1 isn't really ok - you want it to be more balanced. But I think we should figure out if this is a a reliability concern or an efficiency concern and treat them separately.

gdt commented

2011-06-08 14:05:54 +00:00

Sorry, I didn't mean sickness's desire was blurry. I meant that on reading it, there are two issues possibly behind it, and we should be clear on which we are addressing and why.

davidsarah commented

2011-06-09 00:13:16 +00:00

Replying to zooko:

Diego "sickness" Righi is dissatisfied with this solution.

The original problem in this ticket was that the repairer was using the default value for happiness, which was certainly wrong. Let's not overload the ticket; sickness' complaint is that the current repairer often places shares in a way that doesn't increase happiness, when another different placement of the same number of shares would have done so. That's covered by #1130.

Replying to [zooko](/tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25/issues/1212#issuecomment-80289): > Diego "sickness" Righi is dissatisfied with this solution. The original problem in this ticket was that the repairer was using the default value for happiness, which was certainly wrong. Let's not overload the ticket; sickness' complaint is that the current repairer often places shares in a way that doesn't increase happiness, when another different placement of the same number of shares would have done so. That's covered by #1130.

tahoe-lafs added the

fixed

label 2011-06-09 00:13:16 +00:00

tahoe-lafs closed this issue

2011-06-09 00:13:16 +00:00

zooko commented

2011-06-09 04:05:16 +00:00

Hm, perhaps we should take this to tahoe-dev. Because I don't think that is sickness's complaint--I think his complaint is that it uploads more than one share to a server. I'll try to write a post for tahoe-dev.

kmarkley86 commented

2011-12-22 02:12:16 +00:00

Reopening this ticket. I'm affected by the same fundamental problem, but by a different path. The fix identified earlier was to immutable/repairer.py, but I'm getting an error from immutable/upload.py.

Scenario:
I'm using 2-of-4 encoding with shares.happy=4 on tahoe 1.8.1. From the CLI I do a tahoe check --repair on a file with shares {0, 2, 3} already existing on the grid but share 1 not existing, and I get an UploadUnhappinessError complaining that "we were asked to place shares on at least 7" servers. There are only 4 servers on my grid -- hence my choice of shares.happy=4.

I observed that in immutable/upload.py, BaseUploadable has a statement "default_encoding_param_happy = 7". I tried the experiment of changing this value to 4 (the shares.happy value in my tahoe.cfg) and then the repair succeeds without error.

So there must be a path through this code where the default_encoding_param_happy value is actually used instead of being overridden by the value in tahoe.cfg. (I think it smells a little that this object has defaults at all, instead of requiring the parameters to be provided.)

Reopening this ticket. I'm affected by the same fundamental problem, but by a different path. The fix identified earlier was to immutable/repairer.py, but I'm getting an error from immutable/upload.py. Scenario: I'm using 2-of-4 encoding with shares.happy=4 on tahoe 1.8.1. From the CLI I do a tahoe check --repair on a file with shares {0, 2, 3} already existing on the grid but share 1 not existing, and I get an [UploadUnhappinessError](wiki/UploadUnhappinessError) complaining that "we were asked to place shares on at least 7" servers. There are only 4 servers on my grid -- hence my choice of shares.happy=4. I observed that in immutable/upload.py, [BaseUploadable](wiki/BaseUploadable) has a statement "default_encoding_param_happy = 7". I tried the experiment of changing this value to 4 (the shares.happy value in my tahoe.cfg) and then the repair succeeds without error. So there must be a path through this code where the default_encoding_param_happy value is actually used instead of being overridden by the value in tahoe.cfg. (I think it smells a little that this object has defaults at all, instead of requiring the parameters to be provided.)

tahoe-lafs removed the

fixed

label 2011-12-22 02:12:16 +00:00

tahoe-lafs reopened this issue

2011-12-22 02:12:16 +00:00

zooko commented

2011-12-29 00:25:37 +00:00

Since this is a regression, I think we should consider trying to fix it for Tahoe-LAFS v1.9.1. Advice and help would be appreciated...

zooko modified the milestone from 1.8.1 to 1.9.1

2011-12-29 00:25:37 +00:00

davidsarah commented

2011-12-29 22:43:30 +00:00

Please note that the scope of this ticket is just the fact that immutable/upload.py is incorrectly using default_encoding_param_happy = 7. As far as I know, we're not trying either to fix #1130 or to apply the refactoring/improvements to share placement in #1382 in Tahoe-LAFS 1.9.1.

Please note that the scope of *this* ticket is just the fact that immutable/upload.py is incorrectly using `default_encoding_param_happy = 7`. As far as I know, we're not trying either to fix #1130 or to apply the refactoring/improvements to share placement in #1382 in Tahoe-LAFS 1.9.1.

kevan commented

2012-01-14 19:41:59 +00:00

kmarkley86: A stack trace would help me fix this. Could you provide one?

davidsarah commented

2012-03-31 23:15:25 +00:00

The problem described in comment:80298 is critical to fix for v1.9.2 (or 1.10.0 if we decide to call it that; the next release, anyway).

The problem described in [comment:80298](/tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25/issues/1212#issuecomment-80298) is critical to fix for v1.9.2 (or 1.10.0 if we decide to call it that; the next release, anyway).

tahoe-lafs added

critical

and removed

major

labels 2012-03-31 23:15:25 +00:00

zooko commented

2012-04-01 02:13:18 +00:00

Oh wait, no hold on--this is a php script? No php on tahoe-lafs.org! Sorry.

zooko commented

2012-04-01 02:13:40 +00:00

Wrong ticket. (should have been #1417)

tahoe-lafs changed title from ~~Repairing fails if less than 7 servers available~~ to Upload (sometimes?) ignores shares.happy in tahoe.cfg

2012-06-15 18:56:43 +00:00

david-sarah@jacaranda.org commented

2012-06-19 03:20:20 +00:00

In changeset:196bd583b6c4959c:

Add assertions to make sure that set_default_encoding_parameters is always called, rather than using hardcoded 3/7/10 defaults. Also update affected tests. Note that this by itself cannot fix the bug mentioned in ticket:1212#comment:41, but it might make it easier to reproduce. refs #1212

In changeset:196bd583b6c4959c: ``` Add assertions to make sure that set_default_encoding_parameters is always called, rather than using hardcoded 3/7/10 defaults. Also update affected tests. Note that this by itself cannot fix the bug mentioned in ticket:1212#comment:41, but it might make it easier to reproduce. refs #1212 ```

david-sarah <david-sarah@jacaranda.org> commented

2012-06-19 03:25:10 +00:00

In changeset:196bd583b6c4959c:

Add assertions to make sure that set_default_encoding_parameters is always called, rather than using hardcoded 3/7/10 defaults. Also update affected tests. Note that this by itself cannot fix the bug mentioned in ticket:1212#comment:41, but it might make it easier to reproduce. refs #1212

In changeset:196bd583b6c4959c: ``` Add assertions to make sure that set_default_encoding_parameters is always called, rather than using hardcoded 3/7/10 defaults. Also update affected tests. Note that this by itself cannot fix the bug mentioned in ticket:1212#comment:41, but it might make it easier to reproduce. refs #1212 ```

davidsarah commented

2012-06-19 03:26:24 +00:00

kmarkley86: can you try again to reproduce the problem in comment:80298 using trunk?

kmarkley86: can you try again to reproduce the problem in [comment:80298](/tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25/issues/1212#issuecomment-80298) using trunk?

david-sarah@jacaranda.org commented

2012-06-21 19:33:30 +00:00

In changeset:5521/1.9.2:

Add assertions to make sure that set_default_encoding_parameters is always called, rather than using hardcoded 3/7/10 defaults. Also update affected tests. Note that this by itself cannot fix the bug mentioned in ticket:1212#comment:41, but it might make it easier to reproduce. refs #1212

In changeset:5521/1.9.2: ``` Add assertions to make sure that set_default_encoding_parameters is always called, rather than using hardcoded 3/7/10 defaults. Also update affected tests. Note that this by itself cannot fix the bug mentioned in ticket:1212#comment:41, but it might make it easier to reproduce. refs #1212 ```

david-sarah@jacaranda.org commented

2012-06-21 19:43:26 +00:00

In changeset:5522/1.9.2:

Rollback last patch, which  was pushed unintentionally to the 1.9.2 branch (Add assertions to make sure that set_default_encoding_parameters is always called...) refs #1212

In changeset:5522/1.9.2: ``` Rollback last patch, which was pushed unintentionally to the 1.9.2 branch (Add assertions to make sure that set_default_encoding_parameters is always called...) refs #1212 ```

davidsarah commented

2012-06-21 20:51:13 +00:00

We decided to defer actually fixing the bug (if it still exists) to 1.10.

tahoe-lafs modified the milestone from 1.9.2 to 1.10.0

2012-06-21 20:51:13 +00:00

david-sarah@jacaranda.org commented

2012-07-16 16:33:55 +00:00

In changeset:5883/cloud-backend:

[rebased for cloud-backend] Add assertions to make sure that set_default_encoding_parameters is always called, rather than using hardcoded 3/7/10 defaults. Also update affected tests. Note that this by itself cannot fix the bug mentioned in ticket:1212#comment:41, but it might make it easier to reproduce. refs #1212

In changeset:5883/cloud-backend: ``` [rebased for cloud-backend] Add assertions to make sure that set_default_encoding_parameters is always called, rather than using hardcoded 3/7/10 defaults. Also update affected tests. Note that this by itself cannot fix the bug mentioned in ticket:1212#comment:41, but it might make it easier to reproduce. refs #1212 ```

zooko commented

2012-09-04 16:27:09 +00:00

Kyle: this ticket is blocked on you attempting to reproduce comment:80298 using the new code, which has assertions that will let us learn more about the bug.

Kyle: this ticket is blocked on you attempting to reproduce [comment:80298](/tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25/issues/1212#issuecomment-80298) using the new code, which has assertions that will let us learn more about the bug.

davidsarah commented

2012-10-26 02:50:29 +00:00

Moved to #1830. The original problem was fixed in 1.8.1 I think. See #1130 and #1382 for other improvements to share placement and servers-of-happiness.

tahoe-lafs added the

fixed

label 2012-10-26 02:50:29 +00:00

tahoe-lafs modified the milestone from 1.10.0 to 1.8.1

2012-10-26 02:50:29 +00:00

tahoe-lafs closed this issue

2012-10-26 02:50:29 +00:00

tahoe-lafs changed title from ~~Upload (sometimes?) ignores shares.happy in tahoe.cfg~~ to Repair used default shares.happy

2012-10-26 02:54:56 +00:00

zooko commented

2013-03-18 16:19:38 +00:00

There was discussion of this issue on tahoe-dev: [//pipermail/tahoe-dev/2013-March/008091.html]

davidsarah commented

2013-03-18 19:17:07 +00:00

Replying to zooko:

There was discussion of this issue on tahoe-dev: [//pipermail/tahoe-dev/2013-March/008091.html]

I'm sure that's not the same issue (nor is it the same issue as #1830).

Replying to [zooko](/tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25/issues/1212#issuecomment-80325): > There was discussion of this issue on tahoe-dev: [//pipermail/tahoe-dev/2013-March/008091.html] I'm sure that's not the same issue (nor is it the same issue as #1830).

Sign in to join this conversation.