clarify difference between full and read-only servers in servers-of-happiness failure message #1116

Open
opened 2010-07-13 21:04:53 +00:00 by kevan · 7 comments
kevan commented 2010-07-13 21:04:53 +00:00
Owner

When it fails to find a satisfactory share layout, the peer selection process for immutable files prints out a message explaining why. In that, it counts servers that did not accept shares that they were asked to as full. This is slightly confusing, since the servers may not be full, but instead may just have too little free space to accept shares of the size it was asked to accept. The error message should be changed to reflect this.

(this was first reported in [//pipermail/tahoe-dev/2010-July/004656.html https://tahoe-lafs.org/pipermail/tahoe-dev/2010-July/004656.html])

When it fails to find a satisfactory share layout, the peer selection process for immutable files prints out a message explaining why. In that, it counts servers that did not accept shares that they were asked to as full. This is slightly confusing, since the servers may not be full, but instead may just have too little free space to accept shares of the size it was asked to accept. The error message should be changed to reflect this. (this was first reported in [//pipermail/tahoe-dev/2010-July/004656.html <https://tahoe-lafs.org/pipermail/tahoe-dev/2010-July/004656.html>])
tahoe-lafs added the
code-peerselection
major
defect
1.7.0
labels 2010-07-13 21:04:53 +00:00
tahoe-lafs added this to the 1.7.1 milestone 2010-07-13 21:04:53 +00:00
zooko commented 2010-07-14 06:37:38 +00:00
Author
Owner

I just made up a tag "unfinished-business" to mean an issue that is in some sense caused by a recent change even though the issue is not really a regression. Maybe in the morning inventing this tag will seem like a bad idea, but then we can always delete it and never speak of it again.

I just made up a tag "unfinished-business" to mean an issue that is in some sense caused by a recent change even though the issue is not really a regression. Maybe in the morning inventing this tag will seem like a bad idea, but then we can always delete it and never speak of it again.
tahoe-lafs modified the milestone from 1.7.1 to 1.8β 2010-07-18 02:36:18 +00:00
tahoe-lafs modified the milestone from 1.8β to soon 2010-09-11 00:56:17 +00:00
tahoe-lafs modified the milestone from soon to 1.11.0 2013-09-01 05:29:31 +00:00
zooko commented 2013-09-01 14:10:07 +00:00
Author
Owner

I just read through the mailing list thread and the relevant source code.

I believe the original issue report was mistaken, but there is still something confusing in this error message that should be clarified.

The original report from Kyle Markley on the mailing list turned out to have a different error behind it — #1118. Kevan opened this ticket in the belief that Kyle was confused about the difference between a server being "full" and being "not quite full, but too full to accept that share there", but Kyle was not confused about that.

I read through [the source]source:trunk/src/allmydata/immutable/upload.py?annotate=blame&rev=196bd583b6c4959c60d3f73cdcefc9edda6a38ae just now, and servers get counted as "full" by the uploader if either:

a) They are read-only, the uploader queries them to see if they have a share, and they respond with something other than a failure, or

b) They are not read-only, the uploader asks them to store one or more shares, and they store zero shares.

I'm pretty sure that the current server will do b) only in the case that it is full.

So I think the error message is already pretty accurate, except that it is combining full servers and read-only servers into one number. To close this ticket, track full servers (currently tracked in a member variable named full_count in the code separately from read-only servers, and change the error message from "of which %d placed none due to the server being full" to something like "of which %d placed none due to the server being full and %d found none already present on a read-only server".

I don't think this ticket belongs in Milestone 1.11! Daira: could we move this to "soon"?

I just read through the mailing list thread and the relevant source code. I believe the original issue report was mistaken, but there is still something confusing in this error message that should be clarified. The original report from Kyle Markley on the mailing list turned out to have a different error behind it — #1118. Kevan opened this ticket in the belief that Kyle was confused about the difference between a server being "full" and being "not quite full, but too full to accept that share there", but Kyle was not confused about that. I read through [the source]source:trunk/src/allmydata/immutable/upload.py?annotate=blame&rev=196bd583b6c4959c60d3f73cdcefc9edda6a38ae just now, and servers get counted as "full" by the uploader if either: a) They are read-only, the uploader queries them to see if they have a share, and they respond with something other than a failure, or b) They are not read-only, the uploader asks them to store one or more shares, and they store zero shares. I'm pretty sure that the current server will do b) only in the case that it is full. So I think the error message is already pretty accurate, except that it is combining full servers and read-only servers into one number. To close this ticket, track full servers (currently tracked in a member variable named `full_count` in the code separately from read-only servers, and change the error message from "of which %d placed none due to the server being full" to something like "of which %d placed none due to the server being full and %d found none already present on a read-only server". I don't think this ticket belongs in Milestone 1.11! Daira: could we move this to "soon"?
tahoe-lafs changed title from make the servers-of-happiness error message less confusing to clarify difference between full and read-only servers in servers-of-happiness failure message 2013-09-01 14:10:07 +00:00
tahoe-lafs modified the milestone from 1.11.0 to 1.12.0 2013-09-01 19:16:36 +00:00
zooko commented 2013-12-05 16:56:41 +00:00
Author
Owner

related ticket: #2101

related ticket: #2101
warner commented 2016-03-22 05:02:25 +00:00
Author
Owner

Milestone renamed

Milestone renamed
tahoe-lafs 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
Author
Owner

renaming milestone

renaming milestone
tahoe-lafs modified the milestone from 1.13.0 to 1.14.0 2016-06-28 18:17:14 +00:00
exarkun commented 2020-06-30 14:45:13 +00:00
Author
Owner

Moving open issues out of closed milestones.

Moving open issues out of closed milestones.
tahoe-lafs modified the milestone from 1.14.0 to 1.15.0 2020-06-30 14:45:13 +00:00
meejah commented 2021-03-30 18:40:19 +00:00
Author
Owner

Ticket retargeted after milestone closed

Ticket retargeted after milestone closed
tahoe-lafs modified the milestone from 1.15.0 to soon 2021-03-30 18:40:19 +00:00
Sign in to join this conversation.
No milestone
No project
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25#1116
No description provided.