An interrupted `git-annex copy --to` a cluster via the http server,
when repeated, failed. The http server output "transfer already in
progress, or unable to take transfer lock". Apparently a second
connection was opened to the cluster, because the first connection
never got shut down.
Turned out the problem was that when proxying to a cluster, it would read a
short ByteString from the client, and send that to the nodes. But that left the
nodes warning more. Meanwhile, the proxy was expecting a SUCCESS/FAILURE
message from the nodes. So it didn't return, and so the cluster connection
stayed open.
This fixes a problem when git-annex testremote is run against a cluster
accessed via the http server. Annex.Cluster uses the location log
to find nodes that contain a key when checking if the key is present or getting
it. Just after a key was stored to a cluster node, reading the location log
was not getting the UUID of that node.
Apparently the Annex action that wrote to the location log, and the one
that read from it were run with two different Annex states. The http server
does use several different Annex threads.
BranchState was part of the AnnexState, and so two threads could have
different BranchStates.
Moved BranchState to the AnnexRead, so all threads will see the common state.
This might possibly impact performance. If one thread is writing changes to the
branch, and another thread is reading from the branch, the writing thread will
now invalidate the BranchState's cache, which will cause the reading thread to
need to do extra work. But correctness is surely more important. If did is
found to have impacted performance, it could probably be dealt with by doing
smarter BranchState cache invalidation.
Another way this might impact performance is that the BranchState has a small
cache. If several threads were reading from the branch and relying on the value
they just read still being in the case, now a cache miss will be more likely.
Increasing the BranchState cache to the number of jobs might be a good
idea to amelorate that. But the cache is currently an innefficient list,
so making it large would need changes to the data types.
(Commit 4304f1b6ae dealt with a follow-on
effect of the bug fixed here.)
Wired it up and it seems to basically work, although the test suite is
not fully passing.
Note that --jobs currently gets multiplied by the number of nodes in the
cluster, which is probably not good.
proxyRequest was treating UNLOCKCONTENT as a separate request.
That made it possible for there to be two different connections to the
proxied remote, with LOCKCONTENT being sent to one, and UNLOCKCONTENT
to the other one. A protocol error.
git-annex testremote now passes against a http proxied remote.
sendExactly will now be sure to evaluate the whole lazy ByteString.
In this case, the lazy ByteString was exactly the right lenth.
But, it seems that L.take caused it to not actually be fully evaluated.
In servePut, this manifested as gather never being fully evaluated,
which caused the hang.
Very, very subtle, and horrible bug. Clearly the use of lazy ByteString
(or really just laziness) is at fault, and it would be very worth moving
to conduit or whatever to avoid this.
removeOldestProxyConnectionPool will be innefficient the larger the pool
is. A better data structure could be more efficient. Eg, make each value
in the pool include the timestamp of its oldest element, then the oldest
value can be found and modified, rather than rebuilding the whole Map.
But, for pools of a few hundred items, this should be fine. It's O(n*n log n)
or so.
Also, when more than 1 connection with the same pool key exists,
it's efficient even for larger pools, since removeOldestProxyConnectionPool
is not needed.
The default of 1 idle connection could perhaps be larger.. like the
number of jobs? Otoh, it seems good to ramp up and down the number of
connections, which does happen. With 1, there is at most one stale
connection, which might cause a request to fail.
The proxy always checks the protocol version of a remote before talking
to it in a version-specific way, so the protocol version in the ProxyParams
is the client's protocol version. The remote will always be at the same or
an older protocol version than the client.
Note that in relayDATAFinish, when the client is at protocol version 0,
the remote must thus be as well, and that's why its version is not
checked in the case for that.
With that clarified, it's evident that, in P2P.Http.State, there's no
need to look at the proxied remote's protocol version at all.
