Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[Remote Store] With remote translog, revisit write request response - _shard.successful/_shard.total #5435

Open
ashking94 opened this issue Dec 2, 2022 · 3 comments
Labels
enhancement Enhancement or improvement to existing feature or request Storage:Durability Issues and PRs related to the durability framework

Comments

@ashking94
Copy link
Member

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Currently in logical (document) replication, a request gets fanned out to replication target from the primary, if replicas are configured and active. With remote translog (on top of segment replication), the translog generated locally would be uploaded to remote store. The replicas would be used for primary term validation as mentioned in #3706.

So, if, lets say, there are 2 replica shards, then a write response would contain a node on _shards-

{
  "_index": "test1_segment",
  "_id": "SSaWyIQBb4oiQ9uHCvge",
  "_version": 1,
  "result": "created",
  "_shards": {
    "total": 3,
    "successful": 3,
    "failed": 0
  },
  "_seq_no": 1,
  "_primary_term": 1
}

Here, it means the request was replicated in 3 (1 primary + 2 replicas) shards in total.

With remote store, since the request is not replicated across replicas (unless the primary is relocating), we have to revisit if we should consider replicas (without local translog) in _shards calculation.

Following points has to be considered -

  • how is the _shards field used today by the clients?
  • replication definition of write requests

Describe the solution you'd like
A clear and concise description of what you want to happen.

Describe alternatives you've considered
A clear and concise description of any alternative solutions or features you've considered.

Additional context
Add any other context or screenshots about the feature request here.

@ashking94 ashking94 added enhancement Enhancement or improvement to existing feature or request untriaged Storage:Durability Issues and PRs related to the durability framework v2.5.0 'Issues and PRs related to version v2.5.0' and removed untriaged labels Dec 2, 2022
@ashking94
Copy link
Member Author

Taking the discussion from #5282 to here.
cc @sachinpkale @andrross @dblock @mch2 @Bukhtawar

@saratvemulapalli
Copy link
Member

@ashking94 this is labelled 2.5, code freeze is 1/10 do you think you can make it?

@ashking94 ashking94 removed the v2.5.0 'Issues and PRs related to version v2.5.0' label Jan 6, 2023
@ashking94
Copy link
Member Author

@saratvemulapalli not tracking this for 2.5 release.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement Enhancement or improvement to existing feature or request Storage:Durability Issues and PRs related to the durability framework
Projects
Status: 🆕 New
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants