count-good-share-hosts is calculated incorrectly (post-repair says 10 hosts have good shares but there are only 4 hosts) #1115

New issue

Closed

opened 2010-07-10 04:48:55 +00:00 by zooko · 24 comments

zooko commented

2010-07-10 04:48:55 +00:00

I guess the web page reporting repair results is putting in the number of shares where it ought to have the number of servers.

zooko added the

labels 2010-07-10 04:48:55 +00:00

zooko added this to the 1.7.1 milestone 2010-07-10 04:48:55 +00:00

zooko commented

2010-07-10 04:51:44 +00:00

Author

File Check-And-Repair Results for SI=mkajm2jwe4oaegn5ganiv6guuu

Healthy : healthy
Repair successful
Post-Repair Checker Results:
Report:
Share Counts: need 3-of-10, have 10
Hosts with good shares: 10
Corrupt shares: none
Wrong Shares: 0
Good Shares (sorted in share order):
Share ID	
Nickname
Node ID
0	
soultcer@skulls
sp26qyqclbwjv6lgqdxik5lfdlxrkpnz
1	
soultcer@skulls
sp26qyqclbwjv6lgqdxik5lfdlxrkpnz
2	
strato
tavrk54ewt2bl2faybb55wrs3ghissvx
3	
[FreeStorm](wiki/FreeStorm)-Neptune
fp3xjndgjt2npubdl2jqqb26clanyag7
4	
rxp_apathy
lv3fqmev464vcyi5yn7idjopbbptidxl
5	
soultcer@skulls
sp26qyqclbwjv6lgqdxik5lfdlxrkpnz
6	
soultcer@skulls
sp26qyqclbwjv6lgqdxik5lfdlxrkpnz
7	
strato
tavrk54ewt2bl2faybb55wrs3ghissvx
8	
[FreeStorm](wiki/FreeStorm)-Neptune
fp3xjndgjt2npubdl2jqqb26clanyag7
9	
rxp_apathy
lv3fqmev464vcyi5yn7idjopbbptidxl
Recoverable Versions: 1
Unrecoverable Versions: 0
Share Balancing (servers in permuted order):
Nickname
Node ID
Share IDs
soultcer@skulls
sp26qyqclbwjv6lgqdxik5lfdlxrkpnz
0 1 5 6
strato
tavrk54ewt2bl2faybb55wrs3ghissvx
2 7
[FreeStorm](wiki/FreeStorm)-Neptune
fp3xjndgjt2npubdl2jqqb26clanyag7
3 8
rxp_apathy
lv3fqmev464vcyi5yn7idjopbbptidxl
4 9
Pre-Repair Checker Results:
Report:
Share Counts: need 3-of-10, have 8
Hosts with good shares: 4
Corrupt shares: none
Wrong Shares: 0
Good Shares (sorted in share order):
Share ID	
Nickname
Node ID
1	
soultcer@skulls
sp26qyqclbwjv6lgqdxik5lfdlxrkpnz
2	
strato
tavrk54ewt2bl2faybb55wrs3ghissvx
3	
[FreeStorm](wiki/FreeStorm)-Neptune
fp3xjndgjt2npubdl2jqqb26clanyag7
4	
rxp_apathy
lv3fqmev464vcyi5yn7idjopbbptidxl
6	
soultcer@skulls
sp26qyqclbwjv6lgqdxik5lfdlxrkpnz
7	
strato
tavrk54ewt2bl2faybb55wrs3ghissvx
8	
[FreeStorm](wiki/FreeStorm)-Neptune
fp3xjndgjt2npubdl2jqqb26clanyag7
9	
rxp_apathy
lv3fqmev464vcyi5yn7idjopbbptidxl
Recoverable Versions: 1
Unrecoverable Versions: 0
Share Balancing (servers in permuted order):
Nickname
Node ID
Share IDs
soultcer@skulls
sp26qyqclbwjv6lgqdxik5lfdlxrkpnz
1 6
strato
tavrk54ewt2bl2faybb55wrs3ghissvx
2 7
[FreeStorm](wiki/FreeStorm)-Neptune
fp3xjndgjt2npubdl2jqqb26clanyag7
3 8
rxp_apathy
lv3fqmev464vcyi5yn7idjopbbptidxl
4 9

``` File Check-And-Repair Results for SI=mkajm2jwe4oaegn5ganiv6guuu Healthy : healthy Repair successful Post-Repair Checker Results: Report: Share Counts: need 3-of-10, have 10 Hosts with good shares: 10 Corrupt shares: none Wrong Shares: 0 Good Shares (sorted in share order): Share ID Nickname Node ID 0 soultcer@skulls sp26qyqclbwjv6lgqdxik5lfdlxrkpnz 1 soultcer@skulls sp26qyqclbwjv6lgqdxik5lfdlxrkpnz 2 strato tavrk54ewt2bl2faybb55wrs3ghissvx 3 [FreeStorm](wiki/FreeStorm)-Neptune fp3xjndgjt2npubdl2jqqb26clanyag7 4 rxp_apathy lv3fqmev464vcyi5yn7idjopbbptidxl 5 soultcer@skulls sp26qyqclbwjv6lgqdxik5lfdlxrkpnz 6 soultcer@skulls sp26qyqclbwjv6lgqdxik5lfdlxrkpnz 7 strato tavrk54ewt2bl2faybb55wrs3ghissvx 8 [FreeStorm](wiki/FreeStorm)-Neptune fp3xjndgjt2npubdl2jqqb26clanyag7 9 rxp_apathy lv3fqmev464vcyi5yn7idjopbbptidxl Recoverable Versions: 1 Unrecoverable Versions: 0 Share Balancing (servers in permuted order): Nickname Node ID Share IDs soultcer@skulls sp26qyqclbwjv6lgqdxik5lfdlxrkpnz 0 1 5 6 strato tavrk54ewt2bl2faybb55wrs3ghissvx 2 7 [FreeStorm](wiki/FreeStorm)-Neptune fp3xjndgjt2npubdl2jqqb26clanyag7 3 8 rxp_apathy lv3fqmev464vcyi5yn7idjopbbptidxl 4 9 Pre-Repair Checker Results: Report: Share Counts: need 3-of-10, have 8 Hosts with good shares: 4 Corrupt shares: none Wrong Shares: 0 Good Shares (sorted in share order): Share ID Nickname Node ID 1 soultcer@skulls sp26qyqclbwjv6lgqdxik5lfdlxrkpnz 2 strato tavrk54ewt2bl2faybb55wrs3ghissvx 3 [FreeStorm](wiki/FreeStorm)-Neptune fp3xjndgjt2npubdl2jqqb26clanyag7 4 rxp_apathy lv3fqmev464vcyi5yn7idjopbbptidxl 6 soultcer@skulls sp26qyqclbwjv6lgqdxik5lfdlxrkpnz 7 strato tavrk54ewt2bl2faybb55wrs3ghissvx 8 [FreeStorm](wiki/FreeStorm)-Neptune fp3xjndgjt2npubdl2jqqb26clanyag7 9 rxp_apathy lv3fqmev464vcyi5yn7idjopbbptidxl Recoverable Versions: 1 Unrecoverable Versions: 0 Share Balancing (servers in permuted order): Nickname Node ID Share IDs soultcer@skulls sp26qyqclbwjv6lgqdxik5lfdlxrkpnz 1 6 strato tavrk54ewt2bl2faybb55wrs3ghissvx 2 7 [FreeStorm](wiki/FreeStorm)-Neptune fp3xjndgjt2npubdl2jqqb26clanyag7 3 8 rxp_apathy lv3fqmev464vcyi5yn7idjopbbptidxl 4 9 ```

zooko commented

2010-07-17 07:35:32 +00:00

Author

This would be a bugfix, and it would be a shallow patch with little danger of introducing worse bugs, so it would still be welcome for v1.7.1.

daira commented

2010-07-18 03:33:36 +00:00

Out of time.

daira modified the milestone from 1.7.1 to 1.8β

2010-07-18 03:33:36 +00:00

daira commented

2010-07-20 04:05:05 +00:00

The bug appears to be [here in immutable/filenode.py's check_and_repair method]source:src/allmydata/immutable/filenode.py@4248#L262:

    prr.data['servers-responding'] = list(servers_responding)
    prr.data['count-shares-good'] = len(sm)
    prr.data['count-good-share-hosts'] = len(sm)

count-good-share-hosts should not be the same as count-shares-good. It possibly should be len(servers_responding), but I'm not sure of that.

The bug appears to be [here in immutable/filenode.py's check_and_repair method]source:src/allmydata/immutable/filenode.py@4248#L262: ``` prr.data['servers-responding'] = list(servers_responding) prr.data['count-shares-good'] = len(sm) prr.data['count-good-share-hosts'] = len(sm) ``` `count-good-share-hosts` should not be the same as `count-shares-good`. It possibly should be `len(servers_responding)`, but I'm not sure of that.

zooko commented

2010-07-20 04:31:24 +00:00

Author

Hm it is documented in [webapi.txt]source:docs/frontends/webapi.txt@4508#L1175:

     count-good-share-hosts: the number of distinct storage servers with
                             good shares. If this number is less than
                             count-shares-good, then some shares are doubled
                             up, increasing the correlation of failures. This
                             indicates that one or more shares should be
                             moved to an otherwise unused server, if one is
                             available.

So it should be ... Hrm... I'm not 100% certain but I think that count-good-share-hosts should be len(reduce(set.*union*, sm.itervalues()). Clearly we need a unit test for this.

Hm it is documented in [webapi.txt]source:docs/frontends/webapi.txt@4508#L1175: ``` count-good-share-hosts: the number of distinct storage servers with good shares. If this number is less than count-shares-good, then some shares are doubled up, increasing the correlation of failures. This indicates that one or more shares should be moved to an otherwise unused server, if one is available. ``` So it should be ... Hrm... I'm not 100% certain but I think that `count-good-share-hosts` should be `len(reduce(set.*union*, sm.itervalues())`. Clearly we need a unit test for this.

daira commented

2010-07-20 05:08:31 +00:00

Hmm, isn't that documentation misleading? Suppose that the share->server mapping is

{0: [A, B, C], 1: [D], 2: [D], 3: [D]}

for example. Then the number of good shares is 4 (0, 1, 2, 3), and the number of servers that hold good shares is 4 (A, B, C, D), but server D holds shares that should ideally be moved to other servers.

If the "if" in the comment is interpreted as a sufficient but not necessary condition for shares to be doubled up, then it is strictly speaking correct, but the wording tends to imply a necessary-and-sufficient condition.

The measure that should really be used to decide whether the shares for a file are properly distributed, is servers-of-happiness. We should add that to the repair report, and have the docs deemphasize the usefulness of count-good-share-hosts -- or perhaps even remove it, given that it was calculated incorrectly.

Hmm, isn't that documentation misleading? Suppose that the share->server mapping is ``` {0: [A, B, C], 1: [D], 2: [D], 3: [D]} ``` for example. Then the number of good shares is 4 (0, 1, 2, 3), and the number of servers that hold good shares is 4 (A, B, C, D), but server D holds shares that should ideally be moved to other servers. If the "if" in the comment is interpreted as a sufficient but not necessary condition for shares to be doubled up, then it is strictly speaking correct, but the wording tends to imply a necessary-and-sufficient condition. The measure that should really be used to decide whether the shares for a file are properly distributed, is servers-of-happiness. We should add that to the repair report, and have the docs deemphasize the usefulness of `count-good-share-hosts` -- or perhaps even remove it, given that it was calculated incorrectly.

zooko commented

2010-07-20 15:30:31 +00:00

Author

Replying to davidsarah:

The measure that should really be used to decide whether the shares for a file are properly distributed, is servers-of-happiness. We should add that to the repair report,

and have the docs deemphasize the usefulness of count-good-share-hosts -- or perhaps even remove it, given that it was calculated incorrectly.

I agree to de-emphasize the usefulness of it for deciding if you should rebalance. However, maybe we should go ahead and leave it (corrected) in the report, as someone might find that information useful for something.

Replying to [davidsarah](/tahoe-lafs/trac/issues/1115#issuecomment-379422): > > The measure that should really be used to decide whether the shares for a file are properly distributed, is servers-of-happiness. We should add that to the repair report, +1 > and have the docs deemphasize the usefulness of `count-good-share-hosts` -- or perhaps even remove it, given that it was calculated incorrectly. I agree to de-emphasize the usefulness of it for deciding if you should rebalance. However, maybe we should go ahead and leave it (corrected) in the report, as someone might find that information useful for something.

zooko changed title from ~~post-repair says 10 hosts have good shares but there are only 4 hosts~~ to add servers-of-happiness to reports (post-repair says 10 hosts have good shares but there are only 4 hosts)

2010-07-20 15:30:31 +00:00

daira commented

2010-09-11 00:40:28 +00:00

We have no unit test, so not for 1.8.

daira modified the milestone from 1.8β to 1.9.0

2010-09-11 00:40:28 +00:00

daira self-assigned this 2010-09-11 00:40:28 +00:00

daira commented

2010-09-11 00:45:48 +00:00

In changeset:0091205e3c56a4de:

docs/frontends/webapi.txt: note that 'count-good-share-hosts' is computed incorrectly; refs #1115

In changeset:0091205e3c56a4de: ``` docs/frontends/webapi.txt: note that 'count-good-share-hosts' is computed incorrectly; refs #1115 ```

daira modified the milestone from 1.9.0 to 1.10.0

2011-08-14 01:13:20 +00:00

amiller commented

2012-04-01 05:59:26 +00:00

Right now there are two conflicting definitions for computing count-good-share-hosts:

in immutable/filenode.py, which runs after a repair operation

 prr.data['count-good-share-hosts'] = len(sm)

in immutable/checker.py, which runs just when checking

 d['count-good-share-hosts'] = len([s for s in servers.keys() if servers[s]])

So, I wrote a test for both of these conditions. Per comment:379421 I'm providing a patch to fix the former (incorrect) one.

https://github.com/amiller/tahoe-lafs/pull/4/files

Right now there are two conflicting definitions for computing `count-good-share-hosts`: 1. in [immutable/filenode.py](https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/browser/trunk/src/allmydata/immutable/filenode.py?rev=7da112ccefb4543c#L125), which runs after a repair operation ``` prr.data['count-good-share-hosts'] = len(sm) ``` 2. in [immutable/checker.py](https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/browser/trunk/src/allmydata/immutable/checker.py?rev=7da112ccefb4543c#L760), which runs just when checking ``` d['count-good-share-hosts'] = len([s for s in servers.keys() if servers[s]]) ``` So, I wrote a test for both of these conditions. Per [comment:379421](/tahoe-lafs/trac/issues/1115#issuecomment-379421) I'm providing a patch to fix the former (incorrect) one. <https://github.com/amiller/tahoe-lafs/pull/4/files>

daira commented

2012-04-01 22:34:02 +00:00

len(reduce(set.union, sm.itervalues())) as used in the pull request is wrong for the empty map:

>>> reduce(set.union, {}.itervalues())
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
TypeError: reduce() of empty sequence with no initial value

~~len(set(sm.itervalues())) is correct~~. However, the docs should make clear that a high value of count-good-share-hosts does not imply good share distribution (although a low value does imply bad distribution or insufficient shares).

`len(reduce(set.union, sm.itervalues()))` as used in the pull request is wrong for the empty map: ``` >>> reduce(set.union, {}.itervalues()) Traceback (most recent call last): File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module> TypeError: reduce() of empty sequence with no initial value ``` ~~`len(set(sm.itervalues()))` is correct~~. However, the docs should make clear that a high value of `count-good-share-hosts` does not imply good share distribution (although a low value does imply bad distribution or insufficient shares).

daira modified the milestone from 1.11.0 to 1.9.2

2012-04-01 22:43:36 +00:00

daira removed their assignment 2012-04-01 22:43:36 +00:00

amiller was assigned by daira

2012-04-01 22:43:36 +00:00

amiller commented

2012-04-01 23:39:10 +00:00

Good catch. I fixed the problem by adding an initial argument to reduce:

len(reduce(set.union, sm.itervalues(), set()))

I modified the unit test to cover this as well.

Apparently github pull requests are not stateless so the previous link now includes my new commit, so perhaps that's not the ideal for archiving progress. Here's the commit:

https://github.com/amiller/tahoe-lafs/commit/3898753b9549f5b355a0233b835da8fc38faa5c6

Good catch. I fixed the problem by adding an initial argument to reduce: ` len(reduce(set.union, sm.itervalues(), set())) ` I modified the unit test to cover this as well. Apparently github pull requests are not stateless so the previous link now includes my new commit, so perhaps that's not the ideal for archiving progress. Here's the commit: <https://github.com/amiller/tahoe-lafs/commit/3898753b9549f5b355a0233b835da8fc38faa5c6>

amiller was unassigned by daira

2012-04-02 00:10:52 +00:00

daira self-assigned this 2012-04-02 00:10:52 +00:00

warner commented

2012-05-13 08:26:00 +00:00

Yeah, that describes what I had in mind for count-good-share-hosts, but
I agree that it probably isn't as meaningful as I'd originally thought.
The sharemap described in comment:379422 is a great example, although I think
it'd be awfully hard to get into this situation (it would take some
serious contortions to get an uploader+repairer to leave shares in that
state). count-good-share-hosts probably covered the situations I was
able to imagine happening after a typical upload process, but if there's
a better "what needs to happen to make your file healthier" value, I'm
happy to emphasize that instead.

Anyways, I reviewed the patch and it looks good. I added a few cosmetic
fixes (whitespace, name of the test file), and will land it in a minute.

Yeah, that describes what I had in mind for count-good-share-hosts, but I agree that it probably isn't as meaningful as I'd originally thought. The sharemap described in [comment:379422](/tahoe-lafs/trac/issues/1115#issuecomment-379422) is a great example, although I think it'd be awfully hard to get into this situation (it would take some serious contortions to get an uploader+repairer to leave shares in that state). count-good-share-hosts probably covered the situations I was able to imagine happening after a typical upload process, but if there's a better "what needs to happen to make your file healthier" value, I'm happy to emphasize that instead. Anyways, I reviewed the patch and it looks good. I added a few cosmetic fixes (whitespace, name of the test file), and will land it in a minute.

daira was unassigned by warner

2012-05-13 08:26:00 +00:00

warner self-assigned this 2012-05-13 08:26:00 +00:00

Brian Warner <warner@lothar.com> commented

2012-05-13 08:26:27 +00:00

Owner

In changeset:fcc7e6475918eab1:

Doc updates and cosmetic fixes for #1115 patch.

Removes the caveat from webapi.txt about count-good-share-hosts being wrong.

This series should close #1115.

In changeset:fcc7e6475918eab1: ``` Doc updates and cosmetic fixes for #1115 patch. Removes the caveat from webapi.txt about count-good-share-hosts being wrong. This series should close #1115. ```

tahoe-lafs added the

r/fixed

label 2012-05-13 08:26:27 +00:00

Brian Warner <warner@lothar.com> closed this issue

2012-05-13 08:26:27 +00:00

Brian Warner <warner@lothar.com> commented

2012-05-13 08:27:27 +00:00

Owner

In changeset:fcc7e6475918eab1:

Doc updates and cosmetic fixes for #1115 patch.

Removes the caveat from webapi.txt about count-good-share-hosts being wrong.

This series should close #1115.

In changeset:fcc7e6475918eab1: ``` Doc updates and cosmetic fixes for #1115 patch. Removes the caveat from webapi.txt about count-good-share-hosts being wrong. This series should close #1115. ```

daira commented

2012-05-13 23:53:48 +00:00

Want to double-check the correctness of this.

daira removed the

r/fixed

label 2012-05-13 23:53:48 +00:00

daira reopened this issue

2012-05-13 23:53:48 +00:00

warner was unassigned by daira

2012-05-13 23:54:20 +00:00

daira self-assigned this 2012-05-13 23:54:20 +00:00

daira changed title from ~~add servers-of-happiness to reports (post-repair says 10 hosts have good shares but there are only 4 hosts)~~ to count-good-shares is calculated incorrectly (post-repair says 10 hosts have good shares but there are only 4 hosts)

2012-07-01 17:12:28 +00:00

daira changed title from ~~count-good-shares is calculated incorrectly (post-repair says 10 hosts have good shares but there are only 4 hosts)~~ to count-good-share-hosts is calculated incorrectly (post-repair says 10 hosts have good shares but there are only 4 hosts)

2012-07-01 17:15:34 +00:00

daira commented

2012-07-01 17:17:44 +00:00

Adding an entry for the happiness count has been split to #1784.

daira commented

2012-07-01 22:05:43 +00:00

The change to the computation of count-good-share-hosts at source:1.9.2/src/allmydata/immutable/checker.py@5499#L765 looks correct. A minor simplification is possible:

d['count-good-share-hosts'] = len([s for s in servers.keys() if servers[s]])

could just be

d['count-good-share-hosts'] = len(servers)

since the servers dict never includes any entries that are empty sets. I don't think this simplification is needed for 1.9.2.

I spotted another problem, though: the value of needs-rebalancing is computed inconsistently between checker.py and filenode.py. In checker.py it is computed as:

# The file needs rebalancing if the set of servers that have at least
# one share is less than the number of uniquely-numbered shares
# available.
cr.set_needs_rebalancing(d['count-good-share-hosts'] < d['count-shares-good'])

In filenode.py it is computed as

prr.set_needs_rebalancing(len(sm) >= verifycap.total_shares)

where len(sm) is equal to count-shares-good. I don't understand this latter definition at all, it looks completely wrong. The definition in checker.py is more subtly wrong because it credits servers that only have duplicated shares as contributing to existing balance. The correct definition should be something like 'iff the happiness count is less than the number of uniquely-numbered good shares available'.

I propose to change the definition in filenode.py to be consistent with checker.py in 1.9.2, and then change it to use the happiness count in 1.10, as part of #1784.

The change to the computation of `count-good-share-hosts` at source:1.9.2/src/allmydata/immutable/checker.py@5499#L765 looks correct. A minor simplification is possible: ``` d['count-good-share-hosts'] = len([s for s in servers.keys() if servers[s]]) ``` could just be ``` d['count-good-share-hosts'] = len(servers) ``` since the `servers` dict never includes any entries that are empty sets. I don't think this simplification is needed for 1.9.2. I spotted another problem, though: the value of `needs-rebalancing` is computed inconsistently between `checker.py` and `filenode.py`. In `checker.py` it is computed as: ``` # The file needs rebalancing if the set of servers that have at least # one share is less than the number of uniquely-numbered shares # available. cr.set_needs_rebalancing(d['count-good-share-hosts'] < d['count-shares-good']) ``` In `filenode.py` it is computed as ``` prr.set_needs_rebalancing(len(sm) >= verifycap.total_shares) ``` where `len(sm)` is equal to `count-shares-good`. I don't understand this latter definition at all, it looks completely wrong. The definition in `checker.py` is more subtly wrong because it credits servers that only have duplicated shares as contributing to existing balance. The correct definition should be something like 'iff the happiness count is less than the number of uniquely-numbered good shares available'. I propose to change the definition in `filenode.py` to be consistent with `checker.py` in 1.9.2, and then change it to use the happiness count in 1.10, as part of #1784.

daira commented

2012-07-01 22:28:12 +00:00

The definition of needs-rebalancing in source:1.9.2/docs/frontends/webapi.rst is:

    needs-rebalancing: (bool) True if there are multiple shares on a single
                       storage server, indicating a reduction in reliability
                       that could be resolved by moving shares to new
                       servers.

but:

it is not true in general that multiple shares on a single storage server indicates a reduction in reliability. It depends whether those shares are not present on other servers.
the definition given does not correspond to what either checker.py or filenode.py computes :-(

The definition of `needs-rebalancing` in source:1.9.2/docs/frontends/webapi.rst is: ``` needs-rebalancing: (bool) True if there are multiple shares on a single storage server, indicating a reduction in reliability that could be resolved by moving shares to new servers. ``` but: * it is not true in general that multiple shares on a single storage server indicates a reduction in reliability. It depends whether those shares are not present on other servers. * the definition given does not correspond to what *either* `checker.py` or `filenode.py` computes :-(

daira commented

2012-07-01 22:57:09 +00:00

Replying to davidsarah:

I propose to change the definition in filenode.py to be consistent with checker.py in 1.9.2, and then change it to use the happiness count in 1.10, as part of #1784.

Actually, sod it, I can't decide how to fix needs-rebalancing for 1.9.2, so I'll put a caveat in webapi.rst and bump it to 1.10 (as part of #1784).

Replying to [davidsarah](/tahoe-lafs/trac/issues/1115#issuecomment-379453): > I propose to change the definition in `filenode.py` to be consistent with `checker.py` in 1.9.2, and then change it to use the happiness count in 1.10, as part of #1784. Actually, sod it, I can't decide how to fix `needs-rebalancing` for 1.9.2, so I'll put a caveat in `webapi.rst` and bump it to 1.10 (as part of #1784).

daira added the

r/fixed

label 2012-07-01 22:57:09 +00:00

daira closed this issue

2012-07-01 22:57:09 +00:00

daira commented

2012-07-01 23:10:16 +00:00

In changeset:5532/1.9.2:

[1.9.2 branch] Add comments and a caveat in webapi.rst indicating that the needs-rebalancing field may be computed incorrectly. refs #1115 refs #1784

In changeset:5532/1.9.2: ``` [1.9.2 branch] Add comments and a caveat in webapi.rst indicating that the needs-rebalancing field may be computed incorrectly. refs #1115 refs #1784 ```

daira commented

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

In changeset:5886/cloud-backend:

[1.9.2 branch] Add comments and a caveat in webapi.rst indicating that the needs-rebalancing field may be computed incorrectly. refs #1115 refs #1784

In changeset:5886/cloud-backend: ``` [1.9.2 branch] Add comments and a caveat in webapi.rst indicating that the needs-rebalancing field may be computed incorrectly. refs #1115 refs #1784 ```

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

2013-04-18 22:50:13 +00:00

Owner

In changeset:b06f8cd8d03a6239:

Add comments and a caveat in webapi.rst indicating that
the needs-rebalancing field may be computed incorrectly. refs #1115, #1784, #1477

Signed-off-by: Daira Hopwood <david-sarah@jacaranda.org>

In changeset:b06f8cd8d03a6239: ``` Add comments and a caveat in webapi.rst indicating that the needs-rebalancing field may be computed incorrectly. refs #1115, #1784, #1477 Signed-off-by: Daira Hopwood <david-sarah@jacaranda.org> ```

daira commented

2013-11-14 17:53:57 +00:00

The needs-rebalancing issue is now #2105.

The `needs-rebalancing` issue is now #2105.