[DOCS-638] Document effect of hidden secondary being most current in failover scenario Created: 24/Oct/12 Updated: 30/Oct/23 Resolved: 06/Nov/12 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | Documentation |
| Component/s: | manual |
| Affects Version/s: | None |
| Fix Version/s: | Server_Docs_20231030 |
| Type: | Improvement | Priority: | Major - P3 |
| Reporter: | Ian Daniel | Assignee: | Sam Kleinman (Inactive) |
| Resolution: | Done | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | None | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Environment: |
Replica set failover |
||
| Issue Links: |
|
||||
| Participants: | |||||
| Days since reply: | 11 years, 15 weeks, 1 day ago | ||||
| Description |
|
In the event of a replica set failover, if a hidden secondary is more current that the visible secondaries, one of the visible secondaries will not be immediately elected primary, but will instead catch up to the hidden secondary before one of them is elected primary. The same is true for a secondary with priority of 0, even if not hidden. This behaviour is implied, but not spelt out explicitly, in the Replication Internals - Elections documentation:
It warrants explicit mention, however, as users could easily incorrectly assume that the behaviour is otherwise: that the visible secondary becomes primary immediately and hence data is lost (data that the hidden secondary had and the visible secondary did not). I suggest documenting it in the following pages:
|
| Comments |
| Comment by auto [ 06/Nov/12 ] |
|
Author: {u'date': u'2012-11-06T22:47:31Z', u'email': u'samk@10gen.com', u'name': u'Sam Kleinman'}Message: minor: |
| Comment by auto [ 06/Nov/12 ] |
|
Author: {u'date': u'2012-11-06T22:20:44Z', u'email': u'samk@10gen.com', u'name': u'Sam Kleinman'}Message: |