Eric Gillespie wrote:
> "David Glasser" <email@example.com> writes:
>> Hmm, are you sure? Here's how I read it. Assume we're moving from
>> linear to sharded size 1000; we run one copy on 0-1999 and one on
>> 2000-4999, so that the first one is making shards 0 and 1, and the
>> second is making shards 2 3 and 4. Let's say the first one completes
>> while the second is still filling up db/revs.reshard/4.shard. The
>> first process will happily move all five *.shard directories into
>> db/revs and delete db/revs.reshard even while the second process is
>> still filling 4.shard.
>> I haven't tested this, but that's what the code looks like to me... if
>> you don't see it, I'll try to reproduce it.
> No, you're right. I found my copy of fsfs-reshard that I had
> actually used just left those .shard directories alone, and I
> moved them all into place at the end. The one in my working
> copy, with the shard renaming, I apparently never actually ran.
> Oops! Maybe we just don't bother with the renaming if a range is
> specified, and add a --finalize mode?
> Bleh, making tools for yourself is ever so much easier than
> trying to generalize...
I can't make these changes myself right now. You want me to revert the
previous commit, or will one of you be picking this up soon enough?
C. Michael Pilato <firstname.lastname@example.org>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Received on Mon Aug 20 15:23:05 2007