[DOCS-6721] Recommend sh.startBalancer() over sh.setBalancerState(true) for re-enabling balancing Created: 04/Dec/15 Updated: 11/Jan/17 Resolved: 03/Feb/16 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | Documentation |
| Component/s: | manual |
| Affects Version/s: | None |
| Fix Version/s: | 01112017-cleanup |
| Type: | Task | Priority: | Major - P3 |
| Reporter: | Spencer Brody (Inactive) | Assignee: | Ravind Kumar (Inactive) |
| 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, 2 weeks ago | ||||||||||||||||
| Description |
|
In |
| Comments |
| Comment by Spencer Brody (Inactive) [ 03/Feb/16 ] |
|
Okay, 10 points to Kay for solving the mystery! The reason sh.startBalancer() is broken is because of the balancer window. If you have a window set and you're not within the active window when you call call sh.startBalancer() or sh.stopBalancer(), those methods will block forever (well, until the window becomes active), as the balancer will not be taking the distributed lock when the window isn't active. This is likely to all change in 3.4 with the changes we're making to how the balancer works, but for the meantime we probably shouldn't do this ticket after all and should keep the recommendations as-is for now, and re-evaluate after 3.4. Thanks everyone who worked on this, and sorry for wasting time. |
| Comment by Spencer Brody (Inactive) [ 01/Feb/16 ] |
|
ravind.kumar, I never got a response back from Richard on my last email, but it sounds like his complaints were based on either outdated or incorrect knowledge of the behavior of sh.stopBalancer(). Based on Kevin's and Andy's comments on |
| Comment by Ravind Kumar (Inactive) [ 01/Feb/16 ] |
|
spencer richard.kreuter Was there any consensus on this, since the last set of comments? Based on reading |