On 3/17/12 3:31 PM, Greg Troxel wrote: > That makes sense, but it would be really nice if the repair process on a > directory that has 9 of the 10 shares it should would result in placing > a copy of the missing share without incrementing the version; I find > that's a huge source of churn in a grid with mostly-present nodes > (e.g. pubgrid). My sense is that's the biggest win in repair stability, > and removes most of the trouble.
Oh, yeah, that's definitely a great idea. Didn't we have a ticket about that? I couldn't see anything on the list[1] that specifically mentioned it. cheers, -Brian [1]: https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/query?status=!closed&component=code-mutable&order=priority _______________________________________________ tahoe-dev mailing list [email protected] http://tahoe-lafs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev
