#778: "shares of happiness" is the wrong measure; "servers of happiness" is
better
--------------------------------+-------------------------------------------
Reporter: zooko | Owner:
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: critical | Milestone: undecided
Component: code-peerselection | Version: 1.4.1
Keywords: reliability | Launchpad_bug:
--------------------------------+-------------------------------------------
Comment(by kevan):
Based on the definition given above, (i.e.: {{{servers_of_happiness=n}}}
implies that the survival of {{{n}}} servers is sufficient for my file to
be available) it doesn't seem unreasonable to interpret
{{{servers_of_happiness=1}}} to mean that if any one of the servers that
my file is initially uploaded to is online, then my file is still
available. This is not the same as saying that I do not care about
{{{servers_of_happiness}}} -- solving the first interpretation would
require placing {{{k}}} shares on each server that received any shares at
all, while the second case is solved if the upload of the file is
successful at all, regardless of how many shares end up on how many
servers. Or at least that's how I interpret it. Hopefully that's clearer.
--
Ticket URL: <http://allmydata.org/trac/tahoe/ticket/778#comment:11>
tahoe-lafs <http://allmydata.org>
secure decentralized file storage grid
_______________________________________________
tahoe-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://allmydata.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev
