#778: "shares of happiness" is the wrong measure; "servers of happiness" is
better
---------------------------------------+------------------------------------
Reporter: zooko | Owner: warner
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: critical | Milestone: 1.6.0
Component: code-peerselection | Version: 1.4.1
Keywords: reliability review-needed | Launchpad_bug:
---------------------------------------+------------------------------------
Comment(by zooko):
Replying to [comment:145 kevan]:
>
> The point of {{{should_add_server}}} is to make sure that that
assignment only happens if it would make {{{self.preexisting_shares}}}
happier than it already is -- that's what the if-statement is checking.
Maybe I don't understand what you mean when you say blindly clobbering
shares?
Shouldn't the point be to be to make the ''union'' of
{{{self.preexisting_shares}}} and {{{used_peers}}} (a.k.a.
{{{planned_shares}}}) happier than it already is?
By "blindly clobbering" I mean what your comment said originally: "blindly
clobbering entries in self.preexisting_shares", i.e. doing a
{{{self.preexisting_shares[shareid] = something}}} without first checking
whether there is already an entry in that dict under the key
{{{shareid}}}.
--
Ticket URL: <http://allmydata.org/trac/tahoe/ticket/778#comment:147>
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
