Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
feat: partial DAG provides with Reprovider.Strategy=mfs|pinned+mfs #10754
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
feat: partial DAG provides with Reprovider.Strategy=mfs|pinned+mfs #10754
Changes from all commits
57367a2
be53048
c606909
4c1ae00
d0241e0
946b8e3
7cd01b1
973dd19
71edc64
e0175f2
42ccd86
e3a8301
f6f5a43
249ee3f
15cb0b3
d67bdc0
5b452eb
0408e40
39b0086
35d952a
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The downside here is that there is no strategy that only provide "recursive-pinned" content, and no mfs.
If we don't provide mfs here, there will be no policy that provides only "recursive-pinned+mfs" content... but it could be added as
pinned+mfs
or so...There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
MFS is implicitly pinned (protected from GC) so I think it is fine to keep it under
pinned
.But things get hairy with
roots
(we dont have ability to only announce dir and file roots as we walk MFS, right?).Maybe keeping
pinned
androots
as-is, and adding separatepinned+mfs
for now is the right way of handling this? (we dont change behavior for existing users, and new users can choosepinned+mfs
).There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is it a problem to only announce the MFS-root? (consider it a big file)... Or you mean this could cause misunderstandings?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
in the meantime I restored "pinned" and "roots" and added "pinned+mfs"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm thinking:
pinned
announces recursive pins by walking the entire DAG behind each recursively pinned CIDroots
announces only root cids of pins (no DAG walk at all)pinned+mfs
should do the same aspinned
– walk the MFS DAG and announce MFS recursively (only local blocks).roots
roots+mfs
just for one CID, fine to announce MFS root with other pin roots)roots
and requires separate profileroots+mfs
)I think its fine to do "easy"
roots
for now – announce the MFS root for now (without walking dag and discovering sub-entity roots).We can add
roots+mfs
if users ask for it.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is how it was.