Skip to content
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

The instructions for modifying the p2p_params statement in dump.sql don't reflect dump.sql #9

Closed
ghost opened this issue Jan 4, 2013 · 1 comment

Comments

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Jan 4, 2013

I am using the same versions of MW/SMW/DSMW as instructed. https://github.com/momo54/DSMW/wiki/testing states:

Important: Open the dump.sql file (with a text editor) and ensure that in the following lines (~line 560-565), VALUES are set to ('0', '0'). If not, set them to ('0', '0') and save the file.

LOCK TABLES p2p_params WRITE;
/!40000 ALTER TABLE p2p_params DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO p2p_params (value, server_id) VALUES (0, '0');
/
!40000 ALTER TABLE p2p_params ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;

However, this does not reflect my dump.sql. In mine these lines begin on 667 and the insert statement is different:

LOCK TABLES p2p_params WRITE;
/!40000 ALTER TABLE p2p_params DISABLE KEYS */;
INSERT INTO p2p_params VALUES (45,'059F07CF0F51D03D365F11662054F20C');
/
!40000 ALTER TABLE p2p_params ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;

@momo54
Copy link
Owner

momo54 commented Jan 5, 2013

Hmm, i updated the wikipage and wrote: "it should looks like:"

LOCK TABLES p2p_params WRITE;
/*!40000 ALTER TABLE p2p_params DISABLE KEYS /;
INSERT INTO p2p_params (value, server_id) VALUES (0, '0');
/!40000 ALTER TABLE p2p_params ENABLE KEYS */;
UNLOCK TABLES;

This table contains the server id and a counter. In DSMW, each server has a unique ID and increment a counter each time an operation is produced. It ensures that each operation in DSMW is globally unique.

The dump.sql simulates a fresh install of DSMW and (0,0) indicates an uninitialized DSMW instance. When starting, DSMW will choose one for each instance. If not, we will obtain 3 servers with same id and get strange behavior during tests.

@momo54 momo54 closed this as completed Jan 5, 2013
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant