[SERVER-5351] migrations should use better slave count to determine up-to-date Created: 21/Mar/12 Updated: 11/Jul/16 Resolved: 23/May/13 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | Core Server |
| Component/s: | Replication, Sharding |
| Affects Version/s: | 2.0.3, 2.1.0 |
| Fix Version/s: | 2.2.5, 2.4.5, 2.5.1 |
| Type: | Bug | Priority: | Major - P3 |
| Reporter: | Greg Studer | Assignee: | Randolph Tan |
| Resolution: | Done | Votes: | 2 |
| Labels: | None | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue Links: |
|
||||||||||||||||
| Operating System: | ALL | ||||||||||||||||
| Participants: | |||||||||||||||||
| Description |
|
... currently we're using a count that is never actually flushed out, except on reconfig (in 2.1, potentially in 2.0). Also we may want to rethink our logic of waiting until the majority of slaves (# slaves / 2 + 1) is caught up. Why not majority of the set, for example? |
| Comments |
| Comment by auto [ 14/Jun/13 ] |
|
Author: {u'username': u'monkey101', u'name': u'Dan Pasette', u'email': u'dan@10gen.com'}Message: |
| Comment by auto [ 13/Jun/13 ] |
|
Author: {u'username': u'renctan', u'name': u'Randolph Tan', u'email': u'randolph@10gen.com'}Message: |
| Comment by auto [ 13/Jun/13 ] |
|
Author: {u'username': u'renctan', u'name': u'Randolph Tan', u'email': u'randolph@10gen.com'}Message: |
| Comment by auto [ 23/May/13 ] |
|
Author: {u'username': u'renctan', u'name': u'Randolph Tan', u'email': u'randolph@10gen.com'}Message: |