mirrors/git-annex
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Merge branch 'master' of ssh://git-annex.branchable.com

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Joey Hess 2012-09-13 16:52:09 -04:00
commit 501e00054f
7 changed files with 101 additions and 1 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

11
doc/Slow_transfer_for_a_lot_of_small_files..mdwn Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
What steps will reproduce the problem?
Sync a lot of small files.
What is the expected output? What do you see instead?
The expected output is hopefully a fast transfer.
But currently it seems like git-annex is only using one thread to transfer(per host or total?)
An option to select number of transfer threads to use(possibly per host) would be very nice.
And maybe also an option to limit how long a queue the browser should show, it can become quite resource intensive with a long queue.

44
doc/bugs/ControlPath_too_long_for_Unix_domain_socket.mdwn Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
What steps will reproduce the problem?
Pairing an existing git annex repository with a fresh repository on another computer in the git-annex webapp
What is the expected output? What do you see instead?
Expected result is that the two machines sync correctly.
What i see are some "ControlPath <data> too long for unix domain socket" errors from ssh, but the computers do actually sync properly.
Even though the data is synced properly, either the sender(or both of the clients) don't actually realize this. And the queue circles, all the transfers are being redone constantly(On every start of git-annex webapp on the original repository at least).
What version of git-annex are you using? On what operating system?
Latest git master as of this post. Debian sid and Ubuntu 12.04
Please provide any additional information below.
stdout snippet from git-annex webapp:
ControlPath "/home/alansmithee/Desktop/annex/.git/annex/ssh/alansmithee@git-annex-debbook.local-alansmithee.dxpXHVCkLhsxvWaH" too long for Unix domain socket
SHA256-s51233--0b4c59b3ab03b1ca6d95d4084fa6ff7220cf26695b6e3dd575f78af3dec6b701
51233 100% 5.43MB/s 0:00:00 (xfer#1, to-check=0/1)
sent 30 bytes received 51385 bytes 102830.00 bytes/sec
total size is 51233 speedup is 1.00
ok
(Recording state in git...)
ControlPath "/home/alansmithee/Desktop/annex/.git/annex/ssh/alansmithee@git-annex-debbook.local-alansmithee.9ZQwEjraTxi20B6W" too long for Unix domain socket
SHA256-s47883982--4b7cbb49506dcdd223a9db7b400cc41fc2e3ebbf5b2b17b75c9334bb949b6754
47883982 100% 1.34MB/s 0:00:34 (xfer#1, to-check=0/1)
sent 30 bytes received 47889978 bytes 1388116.17 bytes/sec
total size is 47883982 speedup is 1.00
ok
(Recording state in git...)
This data appears on both the sending and receiving git-annex stdout. At least for the initial sync. For later syncs it only appears on the sender, though the client system is using a lot of resources.

14
doc/design/assistant/blog/day_49__first_run_experience/comment_4_549b07bb02c07a5b1b95445b01758db2._comment Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
[[!comment format=mdwn
username="dhess"
ip="173.247.200.7"
subject="Choose a friendly/unintimidating name"
date="2012-09-13T00:32:15Z"
content="""
You've already decided to accommodate mom by choosing ~/Desktop as the default location, so you should be consistent: choose a name that means something to people. \"Annex\" and \"GitAnnex\" are good branding, but not very user-friendly. (Contrast with \"Dropbox\", the default folder name for Dropbox -- good branding *and* reasonably meaningful.)
\"Shared\" is friendly, but implies that you're sharing with other people, which isn't necessarily the case. (You should reserve the name \"Shared\" for a sub-directory of the default directory, anyway, if/when the time comes to implement sharing URLs to your g-a-a objects with other users.)
I think that \"Synced\" is fine. Most English-speakers will know what it means, and it's a good description of what g-a-a does.
Don't worry whether we like it or not. Nobody who comments here, nor, likely, anyone who votes, will use the default name anyway ;)
"""]]

2
doc/design/assistant/polls/prioritizing_special_remotes.mdwn
View file

@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ locally paired systems, and remote servers with rsync.
Help me prioritize my work: What special remote would you most like
to use with the git-annex assistant?
[[!poll open=yes 0 "Amazon S3" 0 "Box.com" 0 "My phone (or MP3 player)" 0 "Tahoe-LAFS" 0 "OpenStack SWIFT" 0 "Google Drive" 0 "Amazon Glacier"]]
[[!poll open=yes 4 "Amazon S3" 5 "Box.com" 10 "My phone (or MP3 player)" 0 "Tahoe-LAFS" 1 "OpenStack SWIFT" 1 "Google Drive" 1 "Amazon Glacier"]]
This poll is ordered with the options I consider easiest to build
listed first. Mostly because git-annex already supports them and they

8
doc/design/assistant/polls/prioritizing_special_remotes/comment_1_dd9280df27848a7ff132f5809dab0a79._comment Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
[[!comment format=mdwn
username="https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkSq2FDpK2n66QRUxtqqdbyDuwgbQmUWus"
nickname="Jimmy"
subject="comment 1"
date="2012-09-13T08:39:59Z"
content="""
I've been looking at ceph for various reasons in work, it supports a swift interface as well as it's own restful api. so +1 for swift (and any s3 compatible api).
"""]]

8
doc/design/assistant/polls/prioritizing_special_remotes/comment_2_370e0b9c43486ee96c825f9155eebde4._comment Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
[[!comment format=mdwn
username="https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawl9sYlePmv1xK-VvjBdN-5doOa_Xw-jH4U"
nickname="Richard"
subject="comment 2"
date="2012-09-13T09:07:02Z"
content="""
Swift has its own API but offers a S3 compatibility layer. Last I tried that layer, it did not work.
"""]]

15
doc/forum/Weird_behavior_with_OS_X_Finder_and_Preview.app/comment_4_e514fe2d4d0ad6a10e281939e6ab4266._comment Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
[[!comment format=mdwn
username="https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmBUR4O9mofxVbpb8JV9mEbVfIYv670uJo"
nickname="Justin"
subject="comment 4"
date="2012-09-12T20:32:52Z"
content="""
I see a migration to SHA256E currently outputs:
migrate issue.txt (checksum...) (Recording state in git...)
ok
Is that verifying the existing checksum or re-computing it to re-name the file? If the latter, couldn't the SHA256 to SHA256E migration just rename the file?
I would be worried about this process hiding data corruption.. If it isn't using the old checksum but instead re-computing a new one then it would be easy to miss the fact that a files checksum changed during this process.
"""]]