#778: "shares of happiness" is the wrong measure; "servers of happiness" is
better
--------------------------------+-------------------------------------------
Reporter: zooko | Owner: kevan
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: critical | Milestone: 1.5.1
Component: code-peerselection | Version: 1.4.1
Keywords: reliability | Launchpad_bug:
--------------------------------+-------------------------------------------
Comment(by zooko):
Great! Looking over your patch, this part catches my eye:
{{{
- if placed_shares < self.shares_of_happiness:
+ servers_with_shares = self._servers_with_shares()
+ if len(servers_with_shares) < self.servers_of_happiness:
}}}
I guess this is the critical part of this patch.
If the number of landlords falls below H, then we definitely won't get at
least K-out-of-H reliability at the end, so it should indeed treat this as
a failure here. But, what if {{{len(servers_with_shares) >=
self.servers_of_happiness}}}, and yet we still don't have K-out-of-H
reliability because some of the servers have the same shares as each other
(instead of different share numbers). Can that happen? I think so from
reading the patch -- maybe we should have a test of this case.
--
Ticket URL: <http://allmydata.org/trac/tahoe/ticket/778#comment:51>
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
