[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8034?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14745735#comment-14745735
]
Timothy Potter commented on SOLR-8034:
--------------------------------------
[~tpot] oops! Jessica was actually pinging me {{thelabdude}} (same name,
different handle)
[~mewmewball] this looks good to me ... nice test case! Also, I agree that if
the client is using {{minRf}} then it is their responsibility to handle the
response correctly. Previously, we talked about throwing an exception instead
of just returning to value for the client to interpret and maybe that makes it
more explicit that clients MUST handle minRf not being achieved. We should
handle that in another ticket though.
> If minRF is not satisfied, leader should not put replicas in recovery
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-8034
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-8034
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: SolrCloud
> Reporter: Jessica Cheng Mallet
> Labels: solrcloud
> Attachments: SOLR-8034.patch, SOLR-8034.patch
>
>
> If the minimum replication factor parameter (minRf) in a solr update request
> is not satisfied -- i.e. if the update was not successfully applied on at
> least n replicas where n >= minRf -- the shard leader should not put the
> failed replicas in "leader initiated recovery" and the client should retry
> the update instead.
> This is so that in the scenario were minRf is not satisfied, the failed
> replicas can still be eligible to become a leader in case of leader failure,
> since in the client's perspective this update did not succeed.
> This came up from a network partition scenario where the leader becomes
> sectioned off from its two followers, but they all could still talk to
> zookeeper. The partitioned leader set its two followers as in leader
> initiated recovery, so we couldn't just kill off the partitioned node and
> have a follower take over leadership. For a minRf=1 case, this is the correct
> behavior because the partitioned leader would have accepted updates that the
> followers don't have, and therefore we can't switch leadership or we'd lose
> those updates. However, in the case of minRf=2, solr never accepted any
> update in the client's point of view, so in fact the partitioned leader
> doesn't have any accepted update that the followers don't have, and therefore
> the followers should be eligible to become leaders. Thus, I'm proposing
> modifying the leader initiated recovery logic to not put the followers in
> recovery if the minRf parameter is present and is not satisfied.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
