Add retention leases replication tests #38857

dnhatn · 2019-02-13T16:48:08Z

This commit introduces the retention leases to ESIndexLevelReplicationTestCase, then adds some tests verifying that the retention leases replication works correctly in spite of the presence of the primary failover or out of order delivery of retention leases sync requests.

Relates #37165

elasticmachine · 2019-02-13T16:48:11Z

Pinging @elastic/es-distributed

dnhatn · 2019-02-13T16:49:10Z

server/src/test/java/org/elasticsearch/index/replication/RetentionLeasesReplicationTests.java

+                    }
+                }
+            }
+            group.promoteReplicaToPrimary(newPrimary).get();


Discuss: should we align the retention-leases when a new primary is promoted?

Under what circumstances can the new primary not hold an up-to-date set of leases already? It might perhaps be missing some renewals but I think that's ok.

We are adding two new leases to the old primary: L1 and L2. L1 was synced to replica r1; L2 was synced to r2, but the old primary crashed before two leases are properly synced to all two replicas. If any replica is promoted, then the retention leases between copies are not aligned.

We sync by copying all the leases from the primary to its replicas, so I don't follow how r2 could receive L2 without also receiving L1 (assuming they were added in this order).

However, I think I do see a potential problem:

primary A shares a lease with one replica B, but not to another replica C

A crashes

C discards some history that the lease would have retained

B is promoted to primary and shares its lease with C

C cannot accept this lease since it has already discarded this history

I think we can prevent this, with peer-recovery retention leases, by insisting that leases do not "go backwards", i.e. they only retain history that is already being retained by another lease. This would mean that C could not discard the history in the situation above because it must already hold a different lease that retains that history.

dnhatn · 2019-02-13T21:27:10Z

run elasticsearch-ci/1

DaveCTurner

Looks good - I needed to make similar adjustments to support peer-recovery retention leases. I left some minor comments. Also there are now merge conflicts.

DaveCTurner · 2019-02-19T10:25:51Z

server/src/test/java/org/elasticsearch/index/replication/RetentionLeasesReplicationTests.java

+                    }
+                }
+            }
+            group.promoteReplicaToPrimary(newPrimary).get();


Under what circumstances can the new primary not hold an up-to-date set of leases already? It might perhaps be missing some renewals but I think that's ok.

DaveCTurner · 2019-02-19T10:30:31Z

...ework/src/main/java/org/elasticsearch/index/replication/ESIndexLevelReplicationTestCase.java

+
+            @Override
+            public void backgroundSync(ShardId shardId, RetentionLeases retentionLeases) {
+                sync(shardId, retentionLeases, ActionListener.wrap(r -> {}, e -> fail("fail to sync retention leases [" + e + "]")));


I slightly prefer throw AssertionError("failed to sync retention leases", e); rather than putting the inner stack trace in the message like this.

DaveCTurner · 2019-02-19T10:36:03Z

server/src/main/java/org/elasticsearch/index/seqno/RetentionLeaseSyncAction.java

+
+    public static WritePrimaryResult<Request, Response> performOnPrimary(final Request request,
+                                                                         final IndexShard primary,
+                                                                         final Logger logger) {


Can we assert that we hold an operation permit here?

The sync action is too thin now, so I inline it directly to the test.

DaveCTurner · 2019-02-19T10:36:13Z

server/src/main/java/org/elasticsearch/index/seqno/RetentionLeaseSyncAction.java

+        return performOnReplica(request, replica, logger);
+    }
+
+    public static WriteReplicaResult<Request> performOnReplica(final Request request, final IndexShard replica, final Logger logger) {


Can we assert that we hold an operation permit here?

dnhatn · 2019-02-19T18:20:17Z

Thanks for looking @DaveCTurner. I have addressed your comments. Can you have another look?

DaveCTurner

LGTM

dnhatn · 2019-02-20T13:07:22Z

Thanks @DaveCTurner.

* master: Mute failing CCR retention lease unfollow test Add support for ccr follow info api to HLRC. (elastic#39115) Do not create the missing index when invoking getRole (elastic#39039) Relax history check in ShardFollowTaskReplicationTests (elastic#39162) Add retention leases replication tests (elastic#38857) Edits to text in Phrase Suggester doc (elastic#38966) Edits to text in API Conventions docs (elastic#39001)

This commit introduces the retention leases to ESIndexLevelReplicationTestCase, then adds some tests verifying that the retention leases replication works correctly in spite of the presence of the primary failover or out of order delivery of retention leases sync requests. Relates #37165

This commit introduces the retention leases to ESIndexLevelReplicationTestCase, then adds some tests verifying that the retention leases replication works correctly in spite of the presence of the primary failover or out of order delivery of retention leases sync requests.

This commit introduces the retention leases to ESIndexLevelReplicationTestCase, then adds some tests verifying that the retention leases replication works correctly in spite of the presence of the primary failover or out of order delivery of retention leases sync requests. Relates elastic#37165

Add retention leases replication tests

a3e0306

dnhatn added >test Issues or PRs that are addressing/adding tests :Distributed Indexing/Distributed A catch all label for anything in the Distributed Indexing Area. Please avoid if you can. v6.7.0 v8.0.0 v7.2.0 v7.0.0-beta1 labels Feb 13, 2019

dnhatn requested review from ywelsch, jasontedor and DaveCTurner February 13, 2019 16:48

dnhatn commented Feb 13, 2019

View reviewed changes

jasontedor mentioned this pull request Feb 13, 2019

Shard history retention leases #37165

Closed

24 tasks

imports

e094fa9

ywelsch removed their request for review February 15, 2019 10:29

DaveCTurner reviewed Feb 19, 2019

View reviewed changes

DaveCTurner mentioned this pull request Feb 19, 2019

Retain history for peer recovery using leases #39133

Closed

dnhatn added 2 commits February 19, 2019 13:06

Merge branch 'master' into leases-test-replication

11b80ed

don’t expose

39139b0

dnhatn requested a review from DaveCTurner February 19, 2019 18:20

fix test

95dc858

DaveCTurner approved these changes Feb 20, 2019

View reviewed changes

dnhatn merged commit 8d9b391 into elastic:master Feb 20, 2019

dnhatn deleted the leases-test-replication branch February 20, 2019 13:08

dnhatn added the backport pending label Feb 20, 2019

dnhatn added v7.0.0 and removed backport pending v7.0.0-beta1 labels Feb 21, 2019

jakelandis added v7.0.0-rc2 and removed v7.0.0 labels Apr 3, 2019

jakelandis added v8.0.0-alpha1 and removed v8.0.0 labels Jul 26, 2021

Add retention leases replication tests #38857

Add retention leases replication tests #38857

Uh oh!

Conversation

dnhatn commented Feb 13, 2019

Uh oh!

elasticmachine commented Feb 13, 2019

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

DaveCTurner Feb 19, 2019 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dnhatn commented Feb 13, 2019

Uh oh!

DaveCTurner left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dnhatn commented Feb 19, 2019

Uh oh!

DaveCTurner left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

dnhatn commented Feb 20, 2019

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

DaveCTurner Feb 19, 2019 •

edited

Loading