Uploaded image for project: 'Couchbase Server'
  1. Couchbase Server
  2. MB-42420

Hard failover gets interrupted by auto-failover

    XMLWordPrintable

    Details

    • Triage:
      Untriaged
    • Story Points:
      1
    • Is this a Regression?:
      Yes

      Description

      It so happens that we can interrupt a hard failover of one node to then auto-failover the same node. ns_server should not be overriding a hard failover request from the user to do an auto-failover.

       

      Before 6.5 hard failover was a synchronous operation, that would be completed in the idle state.

      For durability we made changes to hard failover which potentially could take a long time to complete. Hence, we perform this failover in rebalancing state and return immediately to the user.

      This allows hard failover to be interrupted, by auto-failover, which is not desirable.

        Attachments

        No reviews matched the request. Check your Options in the drop-down menu of this sections header.

          Activity

          Abhijeeth.Nuthan Abhijeeth Nuthan created issue -
          Abhijeeth.Nuthan Abhijeeth Nuthan made changes -
          Field Original Value New Value
          Assignee Dave Finlay [ dfinlay ] Abhijeeth Nuthan [ abhijeeth.nuthan ]
          Abhijeeth.Nuthan Abhijeeth Nuthan made changes -
          Description It so happens that we can interrupt a failover of one node to then auto-failover the same node.

          I feel we should not be overriding a failover request from the user to do an auto-failover.

           
          It so happens that we can interrupt a failover of one node to then auto-failover the same node. ns_server should not be overriding a failover request from the user to do an auto-failover.

           

          Before 6.5 failover was a synchronous operation, that would be completed in the idle state.

          For durability we made changes to failover which potentially could take a long time to complete. Hence, we perform failover in rebalancing state and return immediately to the user.

          This allows failover to be interrupted, by auto-failover, which is not desirable.
          Abhijeeth.Nuthan Abhijeeth Nuthan made changes -
          Is this a Regression? Unknown [ 10452 ] Yes [ 10450 ]
          Abhijeeth.Nuthan Abhijeeth Nuthan made changes -
          Description It so happens that we can interrupt a failover of one node to then auto-failover the same node. ns_server should not be overriding a failover request from the user to do an auto-failover.

           

          Before 6.5 failover was a synchronous operation, that would be completed in the idle state.

          For durability we made changes to failover which potentially could take a long time to complete. Hence, we perform failover in rebalancing state and return immediately to the user.

          This allows failover to be interrupted, by auto-failover, which is not desirable.
          It so happens that we can interrupt a failover of one node to then auto-failover the same node. ns_server should not be overriding a hard failover request from the user to do an auto-failover.

           

          Before 6.5 failover was a synchronous operation, that would be completed in the idle state.

          For durability we made changes to failover which potentially could take a long time to complete. Hence, we perform failover in rebalancing state and return immediately to the user.

          This allows failover to be interrupted, by auto-failover, which is not desirable.
          Abhijeeth.Nuthan Abhijeeth Nuthan made changes -
          Summary failover gets interrupted by auto-failover Hard failover gets interrupted by auto-failover
          Abhijeeth.Nuthan Abhijeeth Nuthan made changes -
          Description It so happens that we can interrupt a failover of one node to then auto-failover the same node. ns_server should not be overriding a hard failover request from the user to do an auto-failover.

           

          Before 6.5 failover was a synchronous operation, that would be completed in the idle state.

          For durability we made changes to failover which potentially could take a long time to complete. Hence, we perform failover in rebalancing state and return immediately to the user.

          This allows failover to be interrupted, by auto-failover, which is not desirable.
          It so happens that we can interrupt a hard failover of one node to then auto-failover the same node. ns_server should not be overriding a hard failover request from the user to do an auto-failover.

           

          Before 6.5 hard failover was a synchronous operation, that would be completed in the idle state.

          For durability we made changes to hard failover which potentially could take a long time to complete. Hence, we perform this failover in rebalancing state and return immediately to the user.

          This allows hard failover to be interrupted, by auto-failover, which is not desirable.
          wayne Wayne Siu made changes -
          Link This issue blocks MB-40528 [ MB-40528 ]
          wayne Wayne Siu made changes -
          Labels approved-for-6.6.1
          Abhijeeth.Nuthan Abhijeeth Nuthan made changes -
          Resolution Fixed [ 1 ]
          Status Open [ 1 ] Resolved [ 5 ]
          Balakumaran.Gopal Balakumaran Gopal made changes -
          Attachment MB-42420.png [ 116291 ]
          Balakumaran.Gopal Balakumaran Gopal made changes -
          Status Resolved [ 5 ] Closed [ 6 ]

            People

            Assignee:
            Abhijeeth.Nuthan Abhijeeth Nuthan
            Reporter:
            Abhijeeth.Nuthan Abhijeeth Nuthan
            Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            5 Start watching this issue

              Dates

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved:

                Gerrit Reviews

                There are no open Gerrit changes

                  PagerDuty