Greg Troxel wrote: > I did a 'tahoe --check --raw' on my main directory in the pubgrid, and > got an odd report: the object is 'unhealthy', even though all 10 shares > are present, plus two leftover shares of a previous version. I would > call that healthy with some stale bits in need of garbage collection, > but maybe I don't get it.
The current checker is supposed to consider a file to be unhealthy if fewer than N (in this case 10) shares are present on any servers. So I don't understand why this file was considered unhealthy. We want to change the health criterion to take into account share distribution (http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/614). By that criterion, this file should still be considered healthy, but only just for the default parameters. (It has a happiness of 7, because the shares are distributed between only 7 servers.) > Another oddity is that running check on another client resulted in > seeing very few shares. Both clients have real IP addresses. But, the > one that saw only 4 shares is running (w/o storage) on a machine that > also runs a storage node. This seems to be because only 5 servers responded. The servers that did respond, reported the same shares that they had in the first check. Had the client just been started? In that case it might not have connected to all available storage servers yet (http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/719). > Is it expected that one can run a client and a storage node on one machine > at the same time without problems? Yes, that's a common situation. -- David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ http://davidsarah.livejournal.com
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ tahoe-dev mailing list [email protected] http://tahoe-lafs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev
