[volunteergrid2-l] Impact of downed nodes.

[Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn]

On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Christoph Langguth
<christoph at rosenkeller.org> wrote:
>
> Another effect is that repairs will be triggered more often.
> Even though I'm using 5/10/15 settings (which means that only 1/3 of the
> original fragments is required to be able to reconstruct a file), tahoe will
> trigger a repair if a single fragment is missing because some node is down,
> causing massive data transfers (See my previous mail).
>
> Since deep-check --repair must/should be done regularly, I actually find
> this approach a bit over-eager. I'd personally think that a repair could be
> triggered more selectively (say, once half, or a third, of "shares.total -
> shares.needed" shares are missing, or so...), but... that's the way it's
> implemented.

This issue is tracked by ticket #614. There are three things you could
do to help:

1. Post to that ticket saying "This issue is affecting me.". This will
remind all of the developers about the issue, which we have otherwise
forgotten about since other people are reporting other issues
affecting them. It will also confirm that fixing it in the way that is
currently sketched out on the trac would be the right fix for your use
case.

2. Click on the checkbox to subscribe your email address to the ticket
so that when someone updates the ticket you'll be notified.

3. Fix it! This should, in theory, be one of the easiest tickets to
fix since there is just one number that needs to be different. (Famous
last words. ☺) Other tahoe-lafs volunteers will help you out if you
get started and then post to tahoe-dev when you get stuck.

Regards,

Zooko

https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/614