On 13/07/12 22:56, Brian Warner wrote: > On 7/11/12 8:27 AM, Terrell Russell wrote: > >> Leases are per-share? And not per file... so "#6, share deleted" is >> still only 1 of N being deleted... > > Right, leases are per-share. The idea was that rebalancing (which really > wants to move share #6 from server A to server B) is being driven by a > client who has the right (Accounting) to add share #6 to server A, but > not the right to delete share #6 from server B. They *do* have the right > to stop keeping 6-on-B alive, though, by cancelling their existing lease > and not creating/renewing any others. If they're the only person > interested in this file, 6-on-B can get GCed right away. > > The hope is that multiple supporters of a shared file will all converge > on the same rebalancing conclusions, and allow the > should-be-deleted-but-our-authority-model-doesn't-make-that-easy share > to just expire.
That's a good reason to rebalance shares to the preferred locations based on the permuted list of servers. (Actually, it's sufficient if the shares are in some permutation of those locations; they don't necessarily need to be in the right order for rebalancing to converge.) -- David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ tahoe-dev mailing list tahoe-dev@tahoe-lafs.org https://tahoe-lafs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev
