Folks: Anyone who can help, let's get together this weekend and finish up Tahoe-LAFS v1.8.0! You can see what needs to be done by examining the tickets on the Roadmap [1].
For people who want to do performance measurement, I packaged up a version named "v1.8.0c3" last night which you can download from here: [2]. It isn't *really* the final release candidate because bug #1191 still lives, but it is very close. Anyway, if you can compare the performance of v1.8.0c3 to any previous versions of Tahoe-LAFS that you have measured, that would be helpful. v1.8.0c3 is expected to be better-performing than both v1.7.1 and v1.8.0c2 for almost all server/share layouts, and much better-performing for certain layouts. That's because: * v1.8.0c3 fixes the bug which caused greater CPU usage for larger files, so v1.8.0c3 is dramatically more efficient for downloading large files than v1.8.0c2. * v1.8.0c3 chooses to use shares from several different servers if possible, unlike v1.8.0c2 which would use multiple shares from the same server sometimes. * v1.8.0c3 chooses to use shares from the fastest servers as measured by their round-trip-time in response to Do-You-Have-Blocks (unlike v1.7.1 which would use the lowest-numbered shares from among the first few servers that responded to DYHB, and unlike v1.8.0c2, which would use as many shares as it could from the first server that responded) Regards, Zooko [1] http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/roadmap [2] http://tahoe-lafs.org/source/tahoe-lafs/releases/allmydata-tahoe-1.8.0c3.tar.bz2 http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/1191# unit test failure: failed to download file with 2 shares on one server and one share on another _______________________________________________ tahoe-dev mailing list [email protected] http://tahoe-lafs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev
