I first saw this getting with -J2 over ssh, but later saw it also
without the -J2. It was resuming, and the calulated unboundDelay was
many minutes. The first update of the meter jumped to some large value,
because of the resuming, and so it thought the BW was super fast.
Avoid by waiting until the second meter update.
Might be a good idea to also guard for the delay being many seconds
and avoid waiting. But how many? If BW is legitimately super fast, and a
remote happens to read more than a 32kb or so chunk at a time, it could
in theory download megabytes or gigabytes of data before the first meter
update. It would actually be appropriate then to delay for a long time,
if the desired BW was low. Could make up some numbers that are sane now,
but tech may improve.
(BTW, pleased to see bwlimit does work with -J. I had worried that
it might not, if the meter update happened in a different thread than
the downloading, but it's done in the same thread.)
Sponsored-by: Brett Eisenberg on Patreon
New method is much better. Avoids unrestrained transfer at the beginning
(except for the first block. Keeps right at or a few kb/s below the
configured limit, with very little varation in the actual reported bandwidth.
Removed the /s part of the config as it's not needed.
Ready to merge.
Sponsored-by: Luke Shumaker on Patreon
* When downloading urls fail, explain which urls failed for which
reasons.
* web: Avoid displaying a warning when downloading one url failed
but another url later succeeded.
Some other uses of downloadUrl use urls that are effectively internal use,
and should not all be displayed to the user on failure. Eg, Remote.Git
tries different urls where content could be located depending on how the
remote repo is set up. Exposing those urls to the user would lead to wild
goose chases. So had to parameterize it to control whether it displays urls
or not.
A side effect of this change is that when there are some youtube urls
and some regular urls, it will try regular urls first, even if the
youtube urls are listed first. This seems like an improvement if
anything, but in any case there's no defined order of urls that it's
supposed to use.
Sponsored-by: Dartmouth College's Datalad project
New --batch-keys option added to these commands: get, drop, move, copy, whereis
git-annex-matching-options had to be reworded since some of its options
can be used to match on keys, not only files.
Sponsored-by: Luke Shumaker on Patreon
And that should be all the special remotes supporting it on linux now,
except for in the odd edge case here and there.
Sponsored-by: Dartmouth College's DANDI project
Except when configuration makes curl be used. It did not seem worth
trying to tail the file when curl is downloading.
But when an interrupted download is resumed, it does not read the whole
existing file to hash it. Same reason discussed in
commit 7eb3742e4b76d1d7a487c2c53bf25cda4ee5df43; that could take a long
time with no progress being displayed. And also there's an open http
request, which needs to be consumed; taking a long time to hash the file
might cause it to time out.
Also in passing implemented it for git and external special remotes when
downloading from the web. Several others like S3 are within striking
distance now as well.
Sponsored-by: Dartmouth College's DANDI project
Added fileRetriever', which will let the remaining special remotes
eventually also support incremental verify.
Sponsored-by: Dartmouth College's DANDI project
Simply feed each chunk in turn to the incremental verifier.
When resuming an interrupted retrieve, it does not do incremental
verification. That would need to read the file, up to the resume point,
and feed it to the incremental verifier. That seems easy to get wrong.
Also it would mean extra work done before the transfer can start. Which
would complicate displaying progress, and would perhaps not appear to the
user as if it was resuming from where it left off. Instead, in that
situation, return UnVerified, and let the verification be done in a
separate pass.
Granted, Annex.CopyFile does manage all that, but it's not complicated
by dealing with chunks too.
Sponsored-by: Dartmouth College's DANDI project
I'm now reasonably sure I've identified both cases where this can
happen. v8 upgrades and certian filesystems eg NFS. Both are handled as
well as can be, though it may involve some extra checksumming work.
