[DOCS-1555] sh.startBalancer() might be the wrong thing for turning balancing on after turning it off Created: 29/May/13 Updated: 30/Oct/23 Resolved: 31/Jul/13 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | Documentation |
| Component/s: | Server |
| Affects Version/s: | None |
| Fix Version/s: | Server_Docs_20231030 |
| Type: | Task | Priority: | Major - P3 |
| Reporter: | Richard Kreuter (Inactive) | Assignee: | Allison Reinheimer Moore |
| Resolution: | Done | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | None | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue Links: |
|
||||||||||||||||
| Participants: | |||||||||||||||||
| Days since reply: | 8 years, 10 weeks, 6 days ago | ||||||||||||||||
| Description |
|
Places in the docs that recommend sh.startBalancer() (e.g., after backing up a sharded cluster) are probably not optimal: startBalancer turns the balancer on and waits for balancing to commence, when users probably merely want to turn the balancer back on. There's an alternate method, sh.setBalancerState(), which can just turn the balancer on. Perhaps the docs could recommend that. Alternatively, this could turn into a Core Server issue in the shell to have a tidier method to enable balancing after a stop. |
| Comments |
| Comment by Spencer Brody (Inactive) [ 04/Dec/15 ] |
|
If we don't like the behavior of sh.startBalancer, perhaps we should just change it rather than recommending people not to use it? |
| Comment by auto [ 31/Jul/13 ] |
|
Author: {u'username': u'tychoish', u'name': u'Sam Kleinman', u'email': u'samk@10gen.com'}Message: |
| Comment by auto [ 17/Jun/13 ] |
|
Author: {u'username': u'schmalliso', u'name': u'schmalliso', u'email': u'allison.moore@10gen.com'}Message: Signed-off-by: Sam Kleinman <samk@10gen.com> |
| Comment by auto [ 17/Jun/13 ] |
|
Author: {u'username': u'schmalliso', u'name': u'schmalliso', u'email': u'allison.moore@10gen.com'}Message: Signed-off-by: Sam Kleinman <samk@10gen.com> |