Exclude decomissioning nodes when opening new shards#6165
Open
ncoiffier-celonis wants to merge 8 commits intoquickwit-oss:mainfrom
Open
Exclude decomissioning nodes when opening new shards#6165ncoiffier-celonis wants to merge 8 commits intoquickwit-oss:mainfrom
ncoiffier-celonis wants to merge 8 commits intoquickwit-oss:mainfrom
Conversation
…hese from shard allocation
…status to decommissioning
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Description
Attempt to fix #6158
This PR:
With this approach, even if we have some propagation delay before decomissioning, it is still possible to fail to ingest some documents if the chitchat takes longer than expected to gossip the ingester state to the control-plane.
I am wondering if this could conflict with the approach implemented here though #6163
Any feedback is welcome!!
How was this PR tested?
In addition of the unit and integration tests, I've run it against a local cluster with 2 indexer and observed that the number of errors reported in #6158 decreases from a few 100 to less than 10.
Other considerations
I also considered these 2 approaches:
If we want to de-riskify this change, we could put it behind a feature-flag/config property.