Hey Zooko,
I was using a patched version between 1.9.1 and 1.9.2 which covered i
ticket i opened..
I cannot still build 1.9.2 on x64 Windows 7
Regards,
Iantcho
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 10:52 PM, Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn wrote:
>> That's actually also in 1.9.2:
>>
>> https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Zooko O'Whielacronx wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Brian wrote:
>>
>
> ... snipping out a lot of useful, clearly written details about the
> new introduction and accounting mechanisms ...
>
[... snipping even more useful discussion to focus on firewall t
20 servers total, 17 up consistently. This is a public grid
(Volunteer Grid 2), so I don't own most of the servers.
One of the major remaining bugs in tahoe is that repair of a mutable
object increases the version number, combined with old shares being a
cause for repair. so you have
18
Thanks David-Sarah. You rock!
On Jul 9, 2012 11:33 AM, "Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn" wrote:
> From revision control:
>
>
> https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/browser/git/src/allmydata/storage/crawler.py?annotate=blame&rev=3cb99364e6a83d0064d2838a0c470278903e19ac#L193
>
> It looks like David-Sarah ha
On 7/9/2012 10:47 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:
Brad Rupp writes:
I am running the following command:
~/tahoe/bin/tahoe deep-check --repair --verbose my-alias:
I would include --add-lease, because the servers might be doing expiration.
The servers should not be doing expiration. They should be
> That's actually also in 1.9.2:
>
> https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/browser/git/src/allmydata/storage/crawler.py?annotate=blame&branch=1.9.2#L193
Oh! Great. I wonder what version of Tahoe-LAFS Iantcho was using when
they got the exception in the initial post to this thread?
Hey, maybe Tah
On 09/07/12 19:33, Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn wrote:
>>From revision control:
>
> https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/browser/git/src/allmydata/storage/crawler.py?annotate=blame&rev=3cb99364e6a83d0064d2838a0c470278903e19ac#L193
>
> It looks like David-Sarah has fixed this in trunk so that Tahoe-LAFS
>From revision control:
https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/browser/git/src/allmydata/storage/crawler.py?annotate=blame&rev=3cb99364e6a83d0064d2838a0c470278903e19ac#L193
It looks like David-Sarah has fixed this in trunk so that Tahoe-LAFS
will handle a corrupted or truncated state file by init
Brad Rupp writes:
> I am running the following command:
>
> ~/tahoe/bin/tahoe deep-check --repair --verbose my-alias:
I would include --add-lease, because the servers might be doing expiration.
> The output from repair #1:
>
> repair successful
> done: 11801 objects checked
> pre-repair: 1172
Greetings,
I have a question about object health in Tahoe. If I run two repairs,
one right after another, the second repair quite often has unhealthy
objects. I have not backed up any files to the grid between these two
repairs. I would expect the second repair to not have any unhealthy
ob
10 matches
Mail list logo