-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 38
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
Object expiration and lock conflict #2392
Labels
Milestone
Comments
carpawell
added a commit
to carpawell/neofs-node
that referenced
this issue
Sep 1, 2023
Allow replication of any (expired too) locked object. Information about object locking is considered to be presented on the _container nodes_. Refs. nspcc-dev#2392. Signed-off-by: Pavel Karpy <[email protected]>
carpawell
added a commit
to carpawell/neofs-node
that referenced
this issue
Sep 1, 2023
An object can be expired but locked (and not removed, of course). After the LOCK object expiration, the object should be unlocked and, therefore, become unavailable immediately not by the next GC cycle time. Closes nspcc-dev#2392. Signed-off-by: Pavel Karpy <[email protected]>
carpawell
added a commit
to carpawell/neofs-node
that referenced
this issue
Sep 1, 2023
An object can be expired but locked (and not removed, of course). After the LOCK object expiration, the object should be unlocked and, therefore, become unavailable immediately not by the next GC cycle time. Closes nspcc-dev#2392. Signed-off-by: Pavel Karpy <[email protected]>
carpawell
added a commit
to carpawell/neofs-node
that referenced
this issue
Sep 1, 2023
An object can be expired but locked (and not removed, of course). After the LOCK object expiration, the object should be unlocked and, therefore, become unavailable immediately not by the next GC cycle time. Closes nspcc-dev#2392. Signed-off-by: Pavel Karpy <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Labels
Issue nspcc-dev/neofs-testcases#537 is a possible bug in the neofs-node.
I suggest that we discuss this issue here.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: