[SERVER-16565] FsyncLock on WT should not imply "snapshotting" is OK Created: 16/Dec/14 Updated: 27/Oct/15 Resolved: 12/Jan/15 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | Core Server |
| Component/s: | Concurrency, Usability |
| Affects Version/s: | None |
| Fix Version/s: | 2.8.0-rc5 |
| Type: | Improvement | Priority: | Minor - P4 |
| Reporter: | Osmar Olivo | Assignee: | Matt Kangas |
| Resolution: | Done | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | None | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue Links: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| Backwards Compatibility: | Fully Compatible | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Participants: | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Description |
|
When WiredTiger is the active storage engine, db.fsyncLock() does not completely quiesce the database. Writes may still occur in the background. We should not imply that the database is locked "for snapshotting" in this state. |
| Comments |
| Comment by Githook User [ 12/Jan/15 ] | |||||||||
|
Author: {u'username': u'kangas', u'name': u'Matt Kangas', u'email': u'matt.kangas@mongodb.com'}Message: Remove phrase that is misleading when storageEngine=wiredTiger | |||||||||
| Comment by Daniel Pasette (Inactive) [ 12/Jan/15 ] | |||||||||
|
that is probably a good idea. feel free to re-open. | |||||||||
| Comment by Matt Kangas [ 12/Jan/15 ] | |||||||||
|
Maybe we should remove the "for snapshotting" part of this log message.
The command returns a message that still makes sense for WT, I think.
| |||||||||
| Comment by Daniel Pasette (Inactive) [ 12/Jan/15 ] | |||||||||
|
Don't think this is necessary. The locking part works and the fsync part works. We do need to write the documentation which explains that under the hood, with WT, data may be moving. | |||||||||
| Comment by Daniel Pasette (Inactive) [ 18/Dec/14 ] | |||||||||
|
would be good to message this in the cmd results if possible. |