optimise concat function in cloud_common.py #2348

New Issue

tahoe-lafs · 2014-12-04T00:23:44Z

daira commented

2014-12-04 00:23:44 +00:00

At https://github.com/LeastAuthority/tahoe-lafs/blob/cloud-rebased/src/allmydata/storage/backends/cloud/cloud_common.py#L419, the inner loop can be replaced with a slice assignment, which might be more efficient. This affects concatenation of chunks in the cloud backend.

At <https://github.com/LeastAuthority/tahoe-lafs/blob/cloud-rebased/src/allmydata/storage/backends/cloud/cloud_common.py#L419>, the inner loop can be replaced with a slice assignment, which might be more efficient. This affects concatenation of chunks in the cloud backend.

tahoe-lafs added the

labels 2014-12-04 00:23:44 +00:00

tahoe-lafs added this to the 1.12.0 milestone 2014-12-04 00:23:44 +00:00

tahoe-lafs added

cloud-branch

and removed

1.10.0

labels 2014-12-04 00:23:58 +00:00

warner commented

2016-03-22 05:02:25 +00:00

Milestone renamed

warner modified the milestone from 1.12.0 to 1.13.0

2016-03-22 05:02:25 +00:00

warner commented

2016-06-28 18:17:14 +00:00

renaming milestone

warner modified the milestone from 1.13.0 to 1.14.0

2016-06-28 18:17:14 +00:00

exarkun commented

2020-06-30 14:45:46 +00:00

Moving tickets out of closed milestones.

exarkun modified the milestone from 1.14.0 to 1.15.0

2020-06-30 14:45:46 +00:00

exarkun commented

2020-10-30 12:35:44 +00:00

The established line of development on the "cloud backend" branch has been abandoned. This ticket is being closed as part of a batch-ticket cleanup for "cloud backend"-related tickets.

If this is a bug, it is probably genuinely no longer relevant. The "cloud backend" branch is too large and unwieldy to ever be merged into the main line of development (particularly now that the Python 3 porting effort is significantly underway).

If this is a feature, it may be relevant to some future efforts - if they are sufficiently similar to the "cloud backend" effort - but I am still closing it because there are no immediate plans for a new development effort in such a direction.

Tickets related to the "leasedb" are included in this set because the "leasedb" code is in the "cloud backend" branch and fairly well intertwined with the "cloud backend". If there is interest in lease implementation change at some future time then that effort will essentially have to be restarted as well.

The established line of development on the "cloud backend" branch has been abandoned. This ticket is being closed as part of a batch-ticket cleanup for "cloud backend"-related tickets. If this is a bug, it is probably genuinely no longer relevant. The "cloud backend" branch is too large and unwieldy to ever be merged into the main line of development (particularly now that the Python 3 porting effort is significantly underway). If this is a feature, it may be relevant to some future efforts - if they are sufficiently similar to the "cloud backend" effort - but I am still closing it because there are no immediate plans for a new development effort in such a direction. Tickets related to the "leasedb" are included in this set because the "leasedb" code is in the "cloud backend" branch and fairly well intertwined with the "cloud backend". If there is interest in lease implementation change at some future time then that effort will essentially have to be restarted as well.

exarkun added the

wontfix

label 2020-10-30 12:35:44 +00:00

exarkun closed this issue

2020-10-30 12:35:44 +00:00

Sign in to join this conversation.