Exclude decomissioning nodes when opening new shards, using gRPC stream#6166
Open
ncoiffier-celonis wants to merge 6 commits intoquickwit-oss:mainfrom
Open
Conversation
…ling/rebalancing shards
Member
|
Hello @ncoiffier-celonis, I was also working on something similar on the branch |
Author
|
@guilload Thank you for the answer. I'll try to look into your branch and come back to you if anything is unclear/if I have some questions. |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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:
Alternative approach to #6165, but using gRPC stream instead of chitchat to propagate the decomissioning status to the control-plane.
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 no errors.
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.