[SERVER-2658] map reduce foundindex assertion in repl basic1 test Created: 01/Mar/11 Updated: 12/Jul/16 Resolved: 02/Mar/11 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | Core Server |
| Component/s: | None |
| Affects Version/s: | None |
| Fix Version/s: | 1.9.0 |
| Type: | Bug | Priority: | Major - P3 |
| Reporter: | Aaron Staple | Assignee: | Eliot Horowitz (Inactive) |
| Resolution: | Done | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | None | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Operating System: | ALL |
| Participants: |
| Description |
|
m31001| Thu Feb 24 21:25:56 [conn1] Assertion failure foundIndex db/commands/mr.cpp 587 <http://buildbot.mongodb.org/builders/Linux%2032-bit/builds/2855/steps/test_4/logs/stdio> |
| Comments |
| Comment by auto [ 02/Mar/11 ] |
|
Author: {u'login': u'erh', u'name': u'Eliot Horowitz', u'email': u'eliot@10gen.com'}Message: fix mr test |
| Comment by auto [ 02/Mar/11 ] |
|
Author: {u'login': u'erh', u'name': u'Eliot Horowitz', u'email': u'eliot@10gen.com'}Message: fix mr test |
| Comment by Aaron Staple [ 02/Mar/11 ] |
|
It's not my test, but I am seeing: m31001| Thu Feb 24 21:25:56 [replslave] building new index on { _id: 1 } for foo.mr for foo.tmp.mr.mr_basic1_out_0_inc for foo.tmp.mr.mr_basic1_out_0 for foo.tmp.mr.mr_basic1_out_0 So it looks like the slave is creating an index on the _inc collection, then as part of replication it drops the _inc collection, then it asserts because it can't find an index for the _inc collection. Just having glanced at the test script it looks like the same m/r operations are running on both the master and slave - though not sure on the order of events with reference to the test script. |
| Comment by Eliot Horowitz (Inactive) [ 02/Mar/11 ] |
|
Why is this running against the slave anyway? |
| Comment by Aaron Staple [ 01/Mar/11 ] |
|
Would it make sense to have some sort of policy of not replicating temp / output collections to slaves - or else putting a machine unique component in the auto generated collection names? |
| Comment by Aaron Staple [ 01/Mar/11 ] |
|
From the logs it looks like the master is dropping its temp collection, so the slave drops its temp collection as well. And this happens while the slave m/r task is yielding and is not expecting the temp collection to suddenly disappear. |