[DOCS-211] RS Election doc incorrect Created: 21/May/12 Updated: 21/May/12 Resolved: 21/May/12 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | Documentation |
| Component/s: | None |
| Affects Version/s: | None |
| Fix Version/s: | None |
| Type: | Task | Priority: | Major - P3 |
| Reporter: | Kristina Chodorow (Inactive) | Assignee: | Sam Kleinman (Inactive) |
| Resolution: | Done | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | None | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Participants: | |
| Days since reply: | 11 years, 39 weeks, 2 days ago |
| Description |
|
http://docs.mongodb.org/manual/core/replication-internals/#elections: "If the node seeking an election is more than 10 seconds behind the most recent operation to the replica set." <- no, the node must be completely up-to-date. Also, as a minor point, you might want to mention that nodes with 0 votes can still veto elections (they just can't vote for a candidate). |
| Comments |
| Comment by Sam Kleinman (Inactive) [ 21/May/12 ] |
|
I think this is done, feel free to reopen if there are still issues |
| Comment by auto [ 21/May/12 ] |
|
Author: {u'login': u'tychoish', u'name': u'Sam Kleinman', u'email': u'samk@10gen.com'}Message: |
| Comment by Kristina Chodorow (Inactive) [ 21/May/12 ] |
|
> If the node seeking an election is not up to date with the most It's still not exactly right, because this would imply there could never be a rollback. I think a totally correct (but badly-written) way to put it would be: "If the node seeking an election is not up to date with the most recent operation that the nodes it can reach know about." (E.g., if A can reach B and B can reach C and optime C > A, B will veto. But if neither A nor B can reach C, B will vote for A even though C has a higher optime.) And you are correct, this isn't a changed behavior, I must have overlooked this when I was checking the replication docs. |
| Comment by Sam Kleinman (Inactive) [ 21/May/12 ] |
|
Thanks for this. If you could review the above diff, that would help. Also, I assume that this isn't a changed behavior (and thus would require some sort of version changed notation,) and rather a bug with the documentation itself? |
| Comment by auto [ 21/May/12 ] |
|
Author: {u'login': u'tychoish', u'name': u'Sam Kleinman', u'email': u'samk@10gen.com'}Message: |