Fix #777: Don't request excessive read-ahead packets in RemoteFile #778
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…oteFile Due to a bug in logic introduced by hierynomus#769, RemoteFile.ReadAheadRemoteFileInputStream started to send new read ahead requests for file parts that had already been requested. Every call to read() asked the server to send parts of the file from the point which is already downloaded. Instead, it should have asked to send parts after the last requested part. This commit adds exactly this logic. The bug didn't cause content corruption. It only affected performance, both on servers and on clients.
hierynomus
approved these changes
Apr 7, 2022
|
Thanks for the quick fix @vladimirlagunov |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Due to a bug in logic introduced by #769, RemoteFile.ReadAheadRemoteFileInputStream started to send new read ahead requests for file parts that had already been requested.
Every call to read() asked the server to send parts of the file from the point which is already downloaded. Instead, it should have asked to send parts after the last requested part. This commit adds exactly this logic.
The bug didn't cause content corruption. It only affected performance, both on servers and on clients.