)]}'
{"/PATCHSET_LEVEL":[{"author":{"_account_id":7233,"name":"Matthew Oliver","email":"matt@oliver.net.au","username":"mattoliverau"},"change_message_id":"6a380e24bfdf0aa800b4d9aadb5b37a13262fb16","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":1,"id":"9cb9c67a_e653d1bf","updated":"2026-09-18 02:11:12.000000000","message":"Not sure a like the extra plumbing of yet another parameter or if HANDOFF_DEEP \u003d\u003d \u003e replica_count (being the deafult is 2*replica_count). But it\u0027s more of showing one possible option, ie keep the optimisation but limit it to only deep handoffs.\n\nNo doubt I can clean up the code, just needed to get the first version out of my head.","commit_id":"8279108240cc73aaf7a1326e02f6f2ac2b1500ad"}],"swift/container/replicator.py":[{"author":{"_account_id":7233,"name":"Matthew Oliver","email":"matt@oliver.net.au","username":"mattoliverau"},"change_message_id":"c6ba2f0f86463bc40c4825cd4971fb6c49f52fdc","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":213,"context_line":"                \"Could not find a non-zero weight device for handoff partition\""},{"line_number":214,"context_line":"                \" %d, falling back device %s\" %"},{"line_number":215,"context_line":"                (part, chosen[\u0027device\u0027]))"},{"line_number":216,"context_line":"        # We need to handoff depth"},{"line_number":217,"context_line":"        handoff_type \u003d self.HANDOFF_HANDOFF"},{"line_number":218,"context_line":"        for node in self.ring.get_more_nodes(part):"},{"line_number":219,"context_line":"            if node[\u0027handoff_index\u0027] \u003e\u003d self.ring.replica_count:"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":1,"id":"6de9d4b2_afc0ecdc","line":216,"updated":"2026-09-18 02:13:22.000000000","message":"WE need to handoff depth.. yup great comment Matt 😛","commit_id":"8279108240cc73aaf7a1326e02f6f2ac2b1500ad"},{"author":{"_account_id":7233,"name":"Matthew Oliver","email":"matt@oliver.net.au","username":"mattoliverau"},"change_message_id":"f487191f7189744981460cb389e4a90850087422","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[{"line_number":216,"context_line":"        # We need to handoff depth"},{"line_number":217,"context_line":"        handoff_type \u003d self.HANDOFF_HANDOFF"},{"line_number":218,"context_line":"        for node in self.ring.get_more_nodes(part):"},{"line_number":219,"context_line":"            if node[\u0027handoff_index\u0027] \u003e\u003d self.ring.replica_count:"},{"line_number":220,"context_line":"                handoff_type \u003d self.HANDOFF_DEEP"},{"line_number":221,"context_line":"                break"},{"line_number":222,"context_line":"            if node[\u0027id\u0027] \u003d\u003d chosen[\u0027id\u0027]:"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-python","patch_set":1,"id":"9a3e602a_de14cb97","line":219,"range":{"start_line":219,"start_character":12,"end_line":219,"end_character":64},"updated":"2026-09-18 07:35:39.000000000","message":"error_limited nodes also skip so that could mean a put could easily get to or maybe passed the handoffs, maybe 2x replica_count is better?\n\nNot sure I want to go to the effort of plumging the proxy handoff walking config option into the replicator/sharder or even add a config option.. but if we go this way, maybe we do?","commit_id":"8279108240cc73aaf7a1326e02f6f2ac2b1500ad"}]}