When the specified number of copies is > 1, and some repositories are
too full, it can be better to move content from them to other less full
repositories, in order to make space for new content.
annex.fullybalancedthreshhold is documented, but not implemented yet
This is not tested very well yet, and is known to sometimes take several
runs to stabalize.
Might want to make --rebalance turn balanced=group:N where N > 1
to fullysizebalanced=group:N. Have not yet determined if that will
improve situations enough to be worth the extra work.
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.
Including locking on creation, handling of permissions errors, and
setting repo sizes.
I'm confident that locking is not needed while using this database.
Since writes happen in a single transaction. When there are two writers
that are recording sizes based on different git-annex branch commits,
one will overwrite what the other one recorded. Which is fine, it's only
necessary that the database stays consistent with the content of a
git-annex branch commit.
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.
5afbea25e7 changed it to ignore journal
files that did not correspond to a key in the git-annex branch. However,
when there is a private journal, that can happen.
Neither behavior is fully correct, so keep the old incorrect behavior
rather than introducing a new differently incorrect behavior.
I plan to eventually make git-annex info use Annex.reposizes instead of
calculating it itself, and once Annex.reposizes handles this all
correctly, this will be a moot problem.
This fully fixes --rebalance stability, and also deals with an issue
where a file is present in each balanced repository and it didn't want
to remove it from any.
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.
