The test suite flagged that git-annex info in a readonly repository was
no longer working.
.git/annex/journal.lck: openFd: permission denied
This fixes it, however, in a case where .git/annex/reposize/ is
writable, but .git/annex/journal/ is not, there will still be a
permission denied error. The solution would just be to use consistent
permissions I suppose.
When a live update is removing a key, it might fail. So only count those
once they have succeeded. When a live update is adding a key, count it
immediately to avoid over-filling a repo.
This also makes the 1 minute delay between stale live changes checks
more defensible, because a stale live change can only cause us to err
more on the side of caution.
Reorganized the reposize database directory, and split up a column.
checkStaleSizeChanges needs to run before needLiveUpdate,
otherwise the process won't be holding a lock on its pid file, and
another process could go in and expire the live update it records. It
just so happens that they do get called in the correct order, since
checking balanced preferred content calls getLiveRepoSizes before
needLiveUpdate.
The 1 minute delay between checks is arbitrary, but will avoid excess
work. The downside of it is that, if a process is dropping a file and
gets interrupted, for 1 minute another process can expect a repository
will soon be smaller than it is. And so a process might send data to a
repository when a file is not really going to be dropped from it. But
note that can already happen if a drop takes some time in eg locking and
then fails. So it seems possible that live updates should only be
allowed to increase, rather than decrease the size of a repository.
Fixed successfullyFinishedLiveSizeChange to not update the rolling total
when a redundant change is in RecentChanges.
Made setRepoSizes clear RecentChanges that are no longer needed.
It might be possible to clear those earlier, this is only a convenient
point to do it.
The reason it's safe to clear RecentChanges here is that, in order for a
live update to call successfullyFinishedLiveSizeChange, a change must be
made to a location log. If a RecentChange gets cleared, and just after
that a new live update is started, making the same change, the location
log has already been changed (since the RecentChange exists), and
so when the live update succeeds, it won't call
successfullyFinishedLiveSizeChange. The reason it doesn't
clear RecentChanges when there is a reduntant live update is because
I didn't want to think through whether or not all races are avoided in
that case.
The rolling total in SizeChanges is never cleared. Instead,
calcJournalledRepoSizes gets the initial value of it, and then
getLiveRepoSizes subtracts that initial value from the current value.
Since the rolling total can only be updated by updateRepoSize,
which is called with the journal locked, locking the journal in
calcJournalledRepoSizes ensures that the database does not change while
reading the journal.
Each command that first checks preferred content (and/or required
content) and then does something that can change the sizes of
repositories needs to call prepareLiveUpdate, and plumb it through the
preferred content check and the location log update.
So far, only Command.Drop is done. Many other commands that don't need
to do this have been updated to keep working.
There may be some calls to NoLiveUpdate in places where that should be
done. All will need to be double checked.
Not currently in a compilable state.
A new repo that has no location log info yet, but has an entry in
uuid.log has 0 size, so make RepoSize aware of that.
Note that a new repo that does not yet appear in uuid.log will still not
be displayed.
When a remote is added but not synced with yet, it has no uuid.log
entry. If git-annex maxsize is used to configure that remote, it needs
to appear in the maxsize table, and the change to Command.MaxSize takes
care of that.
Benchmarking a git-annex branch with half a million files changed,
it takes about 1 minute to update the RepoSizes. So this will display
the message after a few seconds.
The use of catObjectStream is optimally fast. Although it might be
possible to combine this with git-annex branch merge to avoid some
redundant work.
Benchmarking, a git-annex branch that had 100000 files changed
took less than 1.88 seconds to run through this.
updateRepoSize is only called on the UUID of a repository, not any
cluster it might be a node of. But overLocationLogs and overLocationLogsJournal
were inclusing cluster UUIDs. So it was inconsistent.
Currently I don't see any reason to calculate RepoSize for a cluster.
It's not even clear what it should mean, the total size of all nodes, or
the amount of information stored in the cluster in total?
At this point the RepoSize database is getting populated, and it
all seems to be working correctly. Incremental updates still need to be
done to make it performant.
Plan is to run this when populating Annex.reposizes on demand.
So Annex.reposizes will be up-to-date with the journal, including
crucially journal entries for private repositories. But also
anything that has been written to the journal by another process,
especially if the process was ran with annex.alwayscommit=false.
From there, Annex.reposizes can be kept up to date with changes made
by the running process.
This will be used to prime the RepoSizes database, which will always
contain values that correpond to information in the git-annex branch, so
without anything from journal files.
Factored out overJournalFileContents which will later be used to
update Annex.reposizes to include information from journal files.
This will be partitcularly important to support private UUIDs which only
ever get to journal files and not to the branch.
git-annex info was displaying a message that didn't make sense in
context.
In calcRepoSizes, it seems better to return the information from the
git-annex branch, rather than giving up. Especially since balanced
preferred content uses it, and we can't just give up evaluating a
preferred content expression if git-annex is to be usable in such a
readonly repo.
Commit 6d7ecd9e5d nobly wanted git-annex
to behave the same with such unmerged branches as it does when it can
merge them. But for the purposes of preferred content, it seems to me
there's a sense that such an unmerged branch is the same as a remote we
have not pulled from. The balanced preferred content will either way
operate under outdated information, and so make not the best choices.
This is very innefficient, it will need to be optimised not to
calculate the sizes of repos every time.
Also, fixed a bug in balancedPicker that caused it to pick a too high
index when some repos were excluded due to being full.
