[SERVER-5788] primary stepdown on reconfig isn't needed in some cases Created: 08/May/12 Updated: 10/Dec/14 Resolved: 10/Oct/14 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | Core Server |
| Component/s: | Replication |
| Affects Version/s: | None |
| Fix Version/s: | None |
| Type: | Bug | Priority: | Major - P3 |
| Reporter: | Greg Studer | Assignee: | Spencer Brody (Inactive) |
| Resolution: | Duplicate | Votes: | 9 |
| Labels: | elections | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue Links: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Backwards Compatibility: | Minor Change | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Operating System: | ALL | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Participants: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Description |
|
... which leads to connections being broken unnecessarily. One such case - if a majority of members are unchanged and the primary is one of the unchanged members. Ex: one secondary node out of a three-node replica set goes bad and we want to replace it with another good node. If that node being down doesn't require a stepdown, then the node changing shouldn't either? |
| Comments |
| Comment by Spencer Brody (Inactive) [ 10/Oct/14 ] |
|
Dupe of |
| Comment by Quentin Schroeder [ 29/Apr/14 ] |
|
This issue has been problematic for us as well, it would be ideal if removing a secondary member didn't cause all connections to drop. |
| Comment by Matt Brennan [ 03/Apr/14 ] |
|
This would be an incredibly helpful feature. |
| Comment by Jeremy [ 27/Dec/13 ] |
|
Same here: rs.remove() triggering an election is disruptive. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/mongodb-user/SVqx5MikVfE/wvKjTCMZzqoJ |
| Comment by Michael Tewner [ 02/Sep/12 ] |
|
This is also an issue by us. Like other DB systems, removal of a secondary should not affect the operation of the primary. |