[SERVER-22778] Invariant failure _uncommittedSnapshots.empty() with enableMajorityReadConcern Created: 20/Feb/16 Updated: 09/Jun/16 Resolved: 22/Feb/16 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | Core Server |
| Component/s: | Replication, Stability |
| Affects Version/s: | 3.2.3 |
| Fix Version/s: | None |
| Type: | Bug | Priority: | Major - P3 |
| Reporter: | Vlad Galu | Assignee: | Unassigned |
| Resolution: | Duplicate | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | None | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue Links: |
|
||||||||||||||||
| Operating System: | ALL | ||||||||||||||||
| Steps To Reproduce: | Running a replica set with one primary and two priority 0 secondaries, all on FreeBSD 10.2, ZFS and WiredTiger. Pushing small documents into a lightly indexed collection at {w:majority, J:true}. |
||||||||||||||||
| Participants: | |||||||||||||||||
| Description |
|
| Comments |
| Comment by Ramon Fernandez Marina [ 22/Feb/16 ] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Understood, thanks vgalu. We're closing these tickets as duplicates of Regards, | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Comment by Vlad Galu [ 20/Feb/16 ] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hi Ramon, Many thanks for chiming back so swiftly on a Saturday. I can confirm that the majority read concern is indeed in use, we wanted to give it a try. We will disable it and report back in a few days, if that's OK. Vlad | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Comment by Ramon Fernandez Marina [ 20/Feb/16 ] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
vgalu, a colleague points out that this is most likely | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Comment by Vlad Galu [ 20/Feb/16 ] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
P.S. This is a purely synthetic test where all documents are identical except for the _id, which is a unique 16 byte array and the two timestamps. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Comment by Vlad Galu [ 20/Feb/16 ] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hi Ramon, I sadly no longer have the diagnostics data, as the setup we observed the issue was transient, but we have brought it back online and we are waiting for another assert. Meanwhile, here is what our schema looks like:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Comment by Ramon Fernandez Marina [ 20/Feb/16 ] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
vgalu, can you please specify on which node do you get the invariant failure? Having full logs for the affected node would be helpful if you could upload them. I'm trying on my end with Linux and documents of the following shape and indexes:
But often data distribution is important, so if you have a reproduction script you can share that will be of great help investigating this ticket and Thanks, |