Scatter: make peer scatter logic same with the leader#6965
Scatter: make peer scatter logic same with the leader#6965ti-chi-bot[bot] merged 10 commits intotikv:masterfrom
Conversation
Signed-off-by: bufferflies <1045931706@qq.com>
|
[REVIEW NOTIFICATION] This pull request has been approved by:
To complete the pull request process, please ask the reviewers in the list to review by filling The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. DetailsReviewer can indicate their review by submitting an approval review. |
Signed-off-by: bufferflies <1045931706@qq.com>
6ff1e36 to
3540f71
Compare
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #6965 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 74.33% 74.47% +0.13%
==========================================
Files 433 427 -6
Lines 46097 45339 -758
==========================================
- Hits 34265 33764 -501
+ Misses 8830 8616 -214
+ Partials 3002 2959 -43
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. |
|
/check-issue-triage-complete |
Signed-off-by: bufferflies <1045931706@qq.com>
CabinfeverB
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Which branches do we need to cherry pick
will follow pingcap/tidb#46156. |
|
/merge |
|
@bufferflies: It seems you want to merge this PR, I will help you trigger all the tests: /run-all-tests You only need to trigger
DetailsInstructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the ti-community-infra/tichi repository. |
|
This pull request has been accepted and is ready to merge. DetailsCommit hash: 9783c53 |
|
@bufferflies: Your PR was out of date, I have automatically updated it for you. If the CI test fails, you just re-trigger the test that failed and the bot will merge the PR for you after the CI passes. DetailsInstructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the ti-community-infra/tichi repository. |
|
In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch |
close tikv#6962 Signed-off-by: ti-chi-bot <ti-community-prow-bot@tidb.io>
|
In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch |
close tikv#6962 Signed-off-by: ti-chi-bot <ti-community-prow-bot@tidb.io>
|
In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch |
close tikv#6962 Signed-off-by: ti-chi-bot <ti-community-prow-bot@tidb.io>
close #6962 In past, PD conside peer distribution in the different group influenece by using `TotalCountByStore` , but not include the leader distribution. The max used situation is partition table. After this pr, TIDB call scatter api will use same group not different. ref: #3422 pingcap/tidb#46156 Signed-off-by: ti-chi-bot <ti-community-prow-bot@tidb.io> Signed-off-by: bufferflies <1045931706@qq.com> Co-authored-by: buffer <1045931706@qq.com> Co-authored-by: bufferflies <1045931706@qq.com> Co-authored-by: ti-chi-bot[bot] <108142056+ti-chi-bot[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
| for _, store := range stores { | ||
| storeCount := context.selectedPeer.TotalCountByStore(store.GetID()) | ||
| storeCount := context.selectedPeer.Get(store.GetID(), group) | ||
| if store.GetID() == peer.GetId() { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
if store.GetID() == peer.GetStoreId() {
close #6962 In past, PD conside peer distribution in the different group influenece by using `TotalCountByStore` , but not include the leader distribution. The max used situation is partition table. After this pr, TIDB call scatter api will use same group not different. ref: #3422 pingcap/tidb#46156 Signed-off-by: ti-chi-bot <ti-community-prow-bot@tidb.io> Signed-off-by: bufferflies <1045931706@qq.com> Co-authored-by: buffer <1045931706@qq.com> Co-authored-by: bufferflies <1045931706@qq.com> Co-authored-by: ti-chi-bot[bot] <108142056+ti-chi-bot[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
close #6962 In past, PD conside peer distribution in the different group influenece by using `TotalCountByStore` , but not include the leader distribution. The max used situation is partition table. After this pr, TIDB call scatter api will use same group not different. ref: #3422 pingcap/tidb#46156 Signed-off-by: ti-chi-bot <ti-community-prow-bot@tidb.io> Signed-off-by: bufferflies <1045931706@qq.com> Co-authored-by: buffer <1045931706@qq.com> Co-authored-by: bufferflies <1045931706@qq.com> Co-authored-by: ti-chi-bot[bot] <108142056+ti-chi-bot[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
close tikv#6962 In past, PD conside peer distribution in the different group influenece by using `TotalCountByStore` , but not include the leader distribution. The max used situation is partition table. After this pr, TIDB call scatter api will use same group not different. ref: tikv#3422 pingcap/tidb#46156 Signed-off-by: bufferflies <1045931706@qq.com> Co-authored-by: ti-chi-bot[bot] <108142056+ti-chi-bot[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
What problem does this PR solve?
Issue Number: Close #6962
What is changed and how does it work?
Check List
Tests
Code changes
Side effects
Related changes
Release note