greg/machi
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 11 Pull requests 1 Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

WIP: refining stable success for machi_chain_manager1_converge_demo, even better

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Scott Lystig Fritchie 2015-08-07 15:06:23 +09:00
parent 512251ac55
commit 30a5652299
1 changed files with 31 additions and 13 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

44
test/machi_chain_manager1_converge_demo.erl
View file

@ -249,7 +249,7 @@ convergence_demo_testfun(NumFLUs, MgrOpts0) ->
io:format(user, "\nSweet, private projections are stable\n", []),
io:format(user, "\t~p\n", [get(stable)]),
io:format(user, "Rolling sanity check ... ", []),
MaxFiles = 3*1000,
MaxFiles = 1*1000,
PrivProjs = [{Name, begin
{ok, Ps8} = ?FLU_PC:get_all_projections(
FLU, private, infinity),
@ -446,12 +446,11 @@ todo_why_does_this_crash_sometimes(FLUName, FLU, PPPepoch) ->
end.
private_projections_are_stable(Namez, PollFunc) ->
Private1 = [get_latest_inner_proj_summ(FLU) || {_Name, FLU} <- Namez],
PollFunc(5, 1, 10),
Private2 = [get_latest_inner_proj_summ(FLU) || {_Name, FLU} <- Namez],
Private1 = [{Name, get_latest_inner_proj_summ(FLU)} || {Name,FLU} <- Namez],
[PollFunc(5, 1, 10) || _ <- lists:seq(1,2)],
Private2 = [{Name, get_latest_inner_proj_summ(FLU)} || {Name,FLU} <- Namez],
%% Is = [Inner_p || {_,_,_,_,Inner_p} <- Private1],
put(stable, Private1),
io:format(user, "\nPriv1 ~p\n", [Private1]),
put(stable, lists:sort(Private1)),
%% We want either all true or all false (inner or not) ... except
%% that it isn't quite that simple. I've now witnessed a case
%% where the projections are stable but not everyone is
@ -465,17 +464,36 @@ private_projections_are_stable(Namez, PollFunc) ->
%% ... and it stays completely stable with these epoch #s.
%%
%% So, instead, if inner/outer status isn't unanimous, then we
%% should check to see if the sets of unique UPIs are disjoint. If
%% they are, then that's sufficient! Private1 == Private2 andalso
%% length(lists:usort(Is)) == 1.
%% should check to see if the sets of unique UPIs are disjoint.
%%
FLUs = [FLU || {FLU,_Pid} <- Namez],
%% U_UPIs = lists:usort([UPI || {_Epoch,UPI,_Rep,_Down,InnerP} <- Private2]),
U_UPI_Rs = lists:usort([UPI++Rep ||
{_Epoch,UPI,Rep,_Down,InnerP} <- Private2]),
{_Nm,{_Epoch,UPI,Rep,_Down,InnerP}} <- Private2]),
FLU_uses = [{Name, Epoch} ||
{Name,{Epoch,_UPI,Rep,_Down,InnerP}} <- Private2],
Unanimous_with_all_peers_p =
lists:all(fun({FLU, UsesEpoch}) ->
length(
lists:usort(
[Epoch || {Name,{Epoch,UPI,Rep,_,_}} <- Private2,
lists:member(FLU, UPI) orelse
lists:member(FLU, Rep)])) == 1
end, FLU_uses),
io:format(user, "\nPriv1 ~p agree ~p\n", [lists:sort(Private1), Unanimous_with_all_peers_p]),
Private1 == Private2 andalso
%% If not disjoint, then a flu will appear twice in flattented U_UPIs.
lists:sort(lists:flatten(U_UPI_Rs)) == lists:sort(FLUs).
%% lists:sort(lists:flatten(U_UPIs)) == lists:sort(FLUs).
lists:sort(lists:flatten(U_UPI_Rs)) == lists:sort(FLUs) andalso
%% Another property that we want is that for each participant
%% X mentioned in a UPI or Repairing list of some epoch E that
%% X is using the same epoch E.
%%
%% It's possible (in theory) for humming consensus to agree on
%% the membership of UPI+Repairing but arrive those lists at
%% different epoch numbers. Machi chain replication won't
%% work in that case: all participants need to be using the
%% same epoch (and csum)! (NOTE: We ignore epoch_csum here.)
Unanimous_with_all_peers_p.
get_latest_inner_proj_summ(FLU) ->
{ok, Proj} = ?FLU_PC:read_latest_projection(FLU, private),