On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 10:01:09AM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote: > > thierry dijoux <[email protected]> writes: > > > Thanks Paul for the reply. > > Just did the test, and a "tahoe check --repair" doesn't rebalance the file. > > I also try a deep-check --repair, no more success. > > I suspect it would be good to have two notions of "healthy", one based > on enough shares, and one based on meeting the distribution criteria. I > see the "should be 1 and 1 but is 2 and 0" situation as scarier than > "should be 10 on 10 servers, but is 9 on 9 servers". also relevant, apart from #699 which has already been mentioned: https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/1382 https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/610 https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/1130#comment:12
_______________________________________________ tahoe-dev mailing list [email protected] https://tahoe-lafs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev
