Fix Incorrect Concurrent SnapshotException on Master Failover#54877
Merged
original-brownbear merged 4 commits intoelastic:masterfrom Apr 8, 2020
original-brownbear:make-nonblocking-snapshot-create-behave-better
Merged
Fix Incorrect Concurrent SnapshotException on Master Failover#54877original-brownbear merged 4 commits intoelastic:masterfrom original-brownbear:make-nonblocking-snapshot-create-behave-better
original-brownbear merged 4 commits intoelastic:masterfrom
original-brownbear:make-nonblocking-snapshot-create-behave-better
Conversation
If we run into an INIT state snapshot and the current master didn't create it, it will be removed anyway. => no need to have that block another snapshot from starting. This has practical relevance because on master failover after snapshot INIT but before start, the create snapshot request will be retried by the client (as it's a transport master node action) and needlessly fail.
Collaborator
|
Pinging @elastic/es-distributed (:Distributed/Snapshot/Restore) |
…napshot-create-behave-better
Contributor
Author
|
Jenkiuns run elasticsearch-ci/bwc |
…napshot-create-behave-better
Contributor
Author
|
Jenkins run elasticsearch-ci/2 |
1 similar comment
Contributor
Author
|
Jenkins run elasticsearch-ci/2 |
Contributor
Author
|
Thanks Yannick! |
original-brownbear
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 20, 2020
#55448) If we run into an INIT state snapshot and the current master didn't create it, it will be removed anyway. => no need to have that block another snapshot from starting. This has practical relevance because on master fail-over after snapshot INIT but before start, the create snapshot request will be retried by the client (as it's a transport master node action) and needlessly fail with an unexpected exception (snapshot clearly didn't exist so it's confusing to the user). This allowed making two disruption type tests stricter
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
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.
If we run into an INIT state snapshot and the current master didn't create it, it will be removed anyway.
=> no need to have that block another snapshot from starting.
This has practical relevance because on master failover after snapshot INIT but before start, the create snapshot request will be retried by the client (as it's a transport master node action) and needlessly fail with an unexpected exception (snapshot clearly didn't exist so it's confusing to the user).
This allowed making two disruption type tests stricter