[SERVER-20298] Less strict configdb checking for config repl set Created: 04/Sep/15  Updated: 25/Jan/17  Resolved: 17/Sep/15

Status: Closed
Project: Core Server
Component/s: Sharding
Affects Version/s: 3.1.7
Fix Version/s: 3.1.9

Type: Task Priority: Major - P3
Reporter: Randolph Tan Assignee: Randolph Tan
Resolution: Done Votes: 0
Labels: None
Remaining Estimate: Not Specified
Time Spent: Not Specified
Original Estimate: Not Specified

Issue Links:
Related
is related to SERVER-20371 Use clusterId for the config server c... Closed
Backwards Compatibility: Fully Compatible
Sprint: Sharding 9 (09/18/15)
Participants:

 Description   

Currently, the setShardVersion command includes the configdb field which contains the connection string to the config server of the current cluster. If the shard is already aware of the config server, then it will compare the configdb field with it's own. This is currently done with a string comparison so it can fail if one of them is missing a member in the list even they are both referring to the same set.



 Comments   
Comment by Githook User [ 17/Sep/15 ]

Author:

{u'username': u'renctan', u'name': u'Randolph Tan', u'email': u'randolph@10gen.com'}

Message: SERVER-20298 Less strict configdb checking for config repl set
Branch: master
https://github.com/mongodb/mongo/commit/6fa377a6e6544fbe1dae17210056fb1c7562d8c5

Comment by Andy Schwerin [ 08/Sep/15 ]

For this ticket, let's relax the constraint to only match replica set name. renctan, please file a separate ticket to add the clusterId check. Put it in sharding needs triage and assign to me, and link it here.

Comment by Randolph Tan [ 08/Sep/15 ]

scotthernandez suggested using the clusterId for the check.

Comment by Randolph Tan [ 08/Sep/15 ]

Two disjoint sets can have the same replica set name so comparing just the name can be too lax. What if we compare the names and members list. If there is at least one common member then the test passes.

Comment by Andy Schwerin [ 05/Sep/15 ]

Only the replica set names should be compared, I propose. Is there any value to doing more?

Generated at Thu Feb 08 03:53:47 UTC 2024 using Jira 9.7.1#970001-sha1:2222b88b221c4928ef0de3161136cc90c8356a66.