Changes between Version 2 and Version 3 of Ticket #1941


Ignore:
Timestamp:
2013-04-09T19:26:24Z (9 years ago)
Author:
zooko
Comment:

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • Ticket #1941 – Description

    v2 v3  
    33There are two problems here that this ticket attempts to address:
    44
    5 1. They didn't trust the grid. Why? Not because the upload failed, but because **they didn't know why the upload had failed**. They interpreted this as evidence that Tahoe-LAFS was buggy or unreliable. If they had seen a clear, understandable explanation that said "This upload failed because you specified you required at least 15 servers, and of the 20 servers on your grid, 10 of them are currently unreachable.", then they would have continued to trust the Tahoe-LAFS software and they would have known what changes to make (to their grid or their happiness parameter) to get what they wanted.
     51. They didn't trust the grid. Why? Not because the upload failed, but because **they didn't know why the upload had failed**. They interpreted this as evidence that Tahoe-LAFS was buggy or unreliable. If they had seen a clear, understandable explanation that said "This upload failed because you specified you required at least 15 servers, and of the 20 servers on your grid, 10 of them are currently unreachable.", then they would have continued to trust the Tahoe-LAFS software and they would have known what changes to make (to their grid or their happiness parameter) to get what they wanted. (Note that information was actually already in those "unhappiness errors", but they didn't read or understand it. See below.)
    66
    772. We (the tahoe-lafs developers) don't know why their uploads failed. Perhaps Tahoe-LAFS was harboring some previously-unknown bug. Perhaps too many of their servers were on flaky home DSL that timed-out most requests. Perhaps it was something else. We can't improve the software without a working feedback loop whereby we can learn the details of failures.