include SI's of files in logs? #367
Labels
No Label
0.2.0
0.3.0
0.4.0
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.7.0
0.8.0
0.9.0
1.0.0
1.1.0
1.10.0
1.10.1
1.10.2
1.10a2
1.11.0
1.12.0
1.12.1
1.13.0
1.14.0
1.15.0
1.15.1
1.2.0
1.3.0
1.4.1
1.5.0
1.6.0
1.6.1
1.7.0
1.7.1
1.7β
1.8.0
1.8.1
1.8.2
1.8.3
1.8β
1.9.0
1.9.0-s3branch
1.9.0a1
1.9.0a2
1.9.0b1
1.9.1
1.9.2
1.9.2a1
LeastAuthority.com automation
blocker
cannot reproduce
cloud-branch
code
code-dirnodes
code-encoding
code-frontend
code-frontend-cli
code-frontend-ftp-sftp
code-frontend-magic-folder
code-frontend-web
code-mutable
code-network
code-nodeadmin
code-peerselection
code-storage
contrib
critical
defect
dev-infrastructure
documentation
duplicate
enhancement
fixed
invalid
major
minor
n/a
normal
operational
packaging
somebody else's problem
supercritical
task
trivial
unknown
was already fixed
website
wontfix
worksforme
No Milestone
No Assignees
2 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Reference: tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25#367
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
No description provided.
Delete Branch "%!s(<nil>)"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
I think it would be good to include information about files added, linked, and unlinked, in the logs, including the file's storage index ("SI").
This might help analyze behavior after the fact.
Brian is uncomfortable with this idea. I think that his objections are two-fold:
Parsing logs is an error-prone way to infer filesystem structure. There are better ways to track the evolution of filesystem structure that we want to implement eventually: manifests and/or deep-verify capabilities. Also, people can already share their read-capabilities with us so that we can examine their filesystem directly.
If you want to share your logs with someone else, so that they can debug, then including SI's in logs exposes to them more information about the structure (but not the content) of your filesystem.
My counter-arguments to Brian's objections are:
1.b. Putting SIs in logs doesn't require us to parse those logs and infer filesystem structure -- it is useful for simpler, flatter, lossier kinds of monitoring, too.
1.c. Putting SIs in logs doesn't preclude us from implementing something good like deep verify caps -- it is too lossy to succeed at that. ;-)
Native upload (when clients speak directly to storage servers) now includes
this message. The log message looks like this:
Clients which upload through a Helper will not emit this message on their
own, however the helper will emit one on their behalf.
Not the easiest thing in the world to gather and work with, but it's a start..