On Mar 13, 2010, at 1:57 PM, Brice Figureau wrote:

On 13/03/10 21:33, Rein Henrichs wrote:
Brice,

I think the "real" fix for the underlying problem is fixing the regression
bug introduced in the file serving refactor.

Indeed, but I think this patch is close to this.

That said, if this hot patch
works around the 100% CPU usage on recursive chowns bug in the user list thread, I think it's desirable to get this into the 0.25.x branch ASAP.

The real underlying issue is that file metadata terminus doesn't care
about the file {} checksum settings, it always compute the md5 checksum
of said files. Why? Because this is what is correct for remote files
metadatas.

This actually shouldn't always need to be true - it's definitely unlikely that we wouldn't be interested in the remote md5, but it's at least possible.

Unfortunately the same code is called in the direct file serving
terminus system, where the checksum should not be computed (it will be
done by the checksum property).

This patch is not 100% correct (but my minimal testing show that it
works), and I don't expect it to be merged directly in 0.25.x (on which
it is based).

Why don't you expect that?

It basically does two things:
* allow setting checksum => none
* make sure file metadata doesn't compute anything if checksum is none
(but only for the direct file server terminus).

A more correct patch would be to prevent checksums to be computed in
local file metadata search.

I suppose that would be sufficient - just have a 'local' flag, effectively, and an additional flag saying "i don't care about the checksum", but... then the latter becomes a superset of the former, so skip the former, use what you have here, and move on.

Or am I missing something?

--
SCSI is *not* magic. There are fundamental technical reasons
why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat to your SCSI chain
now and then.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Luke Kanies  -|-   http://reductivelabs.com   -|-   +1(615)594-8199

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet 
Developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en.

Reply via email to