This does raise the question of if there is any point to this test, since I apparently don't know what the answer *should* be, and whenever one of the buildbots fails then I redefine success.
But, I'm about to commit a bunch of patches to implement checker, verifier, and repairer as well as to refactor downloader, and I would really like to know if these patches *increase* the number of reads required even higher than it currently is.
To fix this error from the Windows buildslave:
[ERROR]: allmydata.test.test_immutable.Test.test_download_from_only_3_remaining_shares
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "C:\Documents and Settings\buildslave\windows-native-tahoe\windows\build\src\allmydata\immutable\download.py", line 135, in _bad
raise NotEnoughSharesError("ran out of peers, last error was %s" % (f,))
allmydata.interfaces.NotEnoughSharesError: ran out of peers, last error was [Failure instance: Traceback: <class 'struct.error'>: unpack requires a string argument of length 4
c:\documents and settings\buildslave\windows-native-tahoe\windows\build\support\lib\site-packages\foolscap-0.3.2-py2.5.egg\foolscap\call.py:667:_done
c:\documents and settings\buildslave\windows-native-tahoe\windows\build\support\lib\site-packages\foolscap-0.3.2-py2.5.egg\foolscap\call.py:53:complete
c:\Python25\lib\site-packages\twisted\internet\defer.py:239:callback
c:\Python25\lib\site-packages\twisted\internet\defer.py:304:_startRunCallbacks
--- <exception caught here> ---
c:\Python25\lib\site-packages\twisted\internet\defer.py:317:_runCallbacks
C:\Documents and Settings\buildslave\windows-native-tahoe\windows\build\src\allmydata\immutable\layout.py:374:_got_length
C:\Python25\lib\struct.py:87:unpack
]
===============================================================================
One of the instances of the name accidentally didn't get changed, and pyflakes noticed. The new downloader/checker/verifier/repairer unit tests would also have noticed, but those tests haven't been rolled into a patch and applied to this repo yet...
Nathan Wilcox observed that the storage server can rely on the size of the share file combined with the count of leases to unambiguously identify the location of the leases. This means that it can hold any size share data, even though the field nominally used to hold the size of the share data is only 32 bits wide.
With this patch, the storage server still writes the "size of the share data" field (just in case the server gets downgraded to an earlier version which requires that field, or the share file gets moved to another server which is of an earlier vintage), but it doesn't use it. Also, with this patch, the server no longer rejects requests to write shares which are >= 2^32 bytes in size, and it no longer rejects attempts to read such shares.
This fixes http://allmydata.org/trac/tahoe/ticket/346 (increase share-size field to 8 bytes, remove 12GiB filesize limit), although there remains open a question of how clients know that a given server can handle large shares (by using the new versioning scheme, probably).
Note that share size is also limited by another factor -- how big of a file we can store on the local filesystem on the server. Currently allmydata.com typically uses ext3 and I think we typically have block size = 4 KiB, which means that the largest file is about 2 TiB. Also, the hard drives themselves are only 1 TB, so the largest share is definitely slightly less than 1 TB, which means (when K == 3), the largest file is less than 3 TB.
This patch also refactors the creation of new sharefiles so that only a single fopen() is used.
This patch also helps with the unit-testing of repairer, since formerly it was unclear what repairer should expect to find if the "share data size" field was corrupted (some corruptions would have no effect, others would cause failure to download). Now it is clear that repairer is not required to notice if this field is corrupted since it has no effect on download. :-)
This facilitates client code to easily catch ServerFailures without also catching exceptions arising from client-side code.
See also:
http://foolscap.lothar.com/trac/ticket/105 # make it easy to distinguish server-side failures/exceptions from client-side
There are a lot of different ways that a share could be corrupted, or that attempting to download it might fail. These tests attempt to exercise many of those ways and require the checker/verifier/repairer to handle each kind of failure well.
Because the unit tests on the VirtualZooko buildslave failed when it took 16 seconds for a process to go away.
Perhaps getting notification after only 5 seconds instead of 20 seconds is desirable, and we should change the unit tests and set this back to 5, but I don't know exactly how to change the unit tests. Perhaps match this particular warning message about the shutdown taking a while and allow the code under test to pass if the only stderr that it emits is this warning.
All issues which are relevant to users of v1.1, v1.2, or v1.3 go in known_issues.txt. All issues which are relevant to users of v1.0 go in historical/historical_known_issues.txt.
We're just going to mark unicode in the cli as unsupported for tahoe-lafs-1.3.0. Unicode filenames on the command-line do actually work for some platforms and probably only if the platform encoding is utf-8, but I'm not sure, and in any case for it to be marked as "supported" it would have to work on all platforms, be thoroughly tested, and also we would have to understand why it worked. :-)
Also encode all args to urllib as utf-8 because urllib doesn't handle unicode objects.
I'm not sure if it is appropriate to *assume* utf-8 encoding of cli args. Perhaps the Right thing to do is to detect the platform encoding. Any ideas?
This patch is mostly due to François Deppierraz.
In an ancient version of directories, we needed a MAC on each entry. In modern times, the entire dirnode comes with a digital signature, so the MAC on each entry is redundant.
With this patch, we no longer check those MACs when reading directories, but we still produce them so that older readers will accept directories that we write.
I get confused about whether a given argument or return value is a uri-as-string or uri-as-object. This patch adds a lot of assertions that it is one or the other, and also changes CheckerResults to take objects not strings.
In the future, I hope that we generally use Python objects except when importing into or exporting from the Python interpreter e.g. over the wire, the UI, or a stored file.
