mirror of
https://github.com/tahoe-lafs/tahoe-lafs.git
synced 2024-12-27 00:21:07 +00:00
57 lines
3.4 KiB
Plaintext
57 lines
3.4 KiB
Plaintext
= THIS PAGE DESCRIBES HISTORICAL DESIGN CHOICES. SEE docs/architecture.txt FOR CURRENT DOCUMENTATION =
|
|
|
|
When a file is uploaded, the encoded shares are sent to other peers. But to
|
|
which ones? The PeerSelection algorithm is used to make this choice.
|
|
|
|
Early in 2007, we were planning to use the following "Tahoe Two" algorithm.
|
|
By the time we released 0.2.0, we switched to "tahoe3", but when we released
|
|
v0.6, we switched back (ticket #132).
|
|
|
|
As in Tahoe Three, the verifierid is used to consistently-permute the set of
|
|
all peers (by sorting the peers by HASH(verifierid+peerid)). Each file gets a
|
|
different permutation, which (on average) will evenly distribute shares among
|
|
the grid and avoid hotspots.
|
|
|
|
With our basket of (usually 10) shares to distribute in hand, we start at the
|
|
beginning of the list and ask each peer in turn if they are willing to hold
|
|
on to one of our shares (the "lease request"). If they say yes, we remove
|
|
that share from the basket and remember who agreed to host it. Then we go to
|
|
the next peer in the list and ask them the same question about another share.
|
|
If a peer says no, we remove them from the list. If a peer says that they
|
|
already have one or more shares for this file, we remove those shares from
|
|
the basket. If we reach the end of the list, we start again at the beginning.
|
|
If we run out of peers before we run out of shares, we fail unless we've
|
|
managed to place at least some number of the shares: the likely threshold is
|
|
to attempt to place 10 shares (out of which we'll need 3 to recover the
|
|
file), and be content if we can find homes for at least 7 of them.
|
|
|
|
In small networks, this approach will loop around several times and place
|
|
several shares with each node (e.g. in a 5-host network with plenty of space,
|
|
each node will get 2 shares). In large networks with plenty of space, the
|
|
shares will be placed with the first 10 peers in the permuted list. In large
|
|
networks that are somewhat full, we'll need to traverse more of the list
|
|
before we find homes for the shares. The average number of peers that we'll
|
|
need to talk to is vaguely equal to 10 / (1-utilization), with a bunch of
|
|
other terms that relate to the distribution of free space on the peers and
|
|
the size of the shares being offered. Small files with small shares will fit
|
|
anywhere, large files with large shares will only fit on certain peers, so
|
|
the mesh may have free space but no holes large enough for a very large file,
|
|
which might indicate that we should try again with a larger number of
|
|
(smaller) shares.
|
|
|
|
When it comes time to download, we compute a similar list of permuted
|
|
peerids, and start asking for shares beginning with the start of the list.
|
|
Each peer gives us a list of the shareids that they are holding. Eventually
|
|
(depending upon how much churn the peerlist has experienced), we'll find
|
|
holders for at least 3 shares, or we'll run out of peers. If the mesh is very
|
|
large and we want to fail faster, we can establish an upper bound on how many
|
|
peers we should talk to (perhaps by recording the permuted peerid of the last
|
|
node to which we sent a share, or a count of the total number of peers we
|
|
talked to during upload).
|
|
|
|
I suspect that this approach handles churn more efficiently than tahoe3, but
|
|
I haven't gotten my head around the math that could be used to show it. On
|
|
the other hand, it takes a lot more round trips to find homes in small meshes
|
|
(one per share, whereas tahoe three can do just one per node).
|
|
|