Screen Shot 2012-10-02 at 6.04.54 PM.png
Screen Shot 2012-10-03 at 2.12.03 PM.png
[MB-6809] Disable Flush with XDCR on the source cluster Created: 03/Oct/12 Updated: 10/Jan/13 Resolved: 09/Oct/12 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | Couchbase Server |
| Component/s: | cross-datacenter-replication, UI |
| Affects Version/s: | 2.0 |
| Fix Version/s: | 2.0 |
| Security Level: | Public |
| Type: | Bug | Priority: | Critical |
| Reporter: | Ketaki Gangal | Assignee: | Aleksey Kondratenko |
| Resolution: | Fixed | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | None | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Attachments: |
Screen Shot 2012-10-02 at 6.04.54 PM.png
Screen Shot 2012-10-03 at 2.12.03 PM.png
|
| Description |
|
Hi,
Today "flush" is not xdcr-replicated to the remote cluster, but we can flush data from either source/ destination and the other cluster/replication is left intact ( no impact of flush) I ve opened bug to either stop/ warn the user of the consequences of using Flush while XDCR is on-going http://www.couchbase.com/issues/browse/MB-6761 We ve discussed this a bit in the past, and realize that a number of combination can arise with enabling flush with xdcr clusters. For example , in a unidirectional setup. One can flush data bucket from source, and replication is not broken. The source cluster has no items and destination cluster has the existing items. With new load coming in, this leaves the clusters in a somewhat inconsistent state. Failing replication for this, would be ideal. Likewise for a destination-flush One can flush data bucket from destination, and replication is not broken. The destination cluster has no items and source cluster has the existing items. With new load coming in, this leaves the clusters in a somewhat inconsistent state. Failing replication for this, would be ideal. And likewise on a Bidirectional replication setup. In the event, that we decide to enable flush+ Xdcr, we will need to add the following to our test-metrics to make sure this feature works under multiple combinations. Since replication will fail/inconsistent with Flush, is it better to disable/ disallow flush + xdcr? |
| Comments |
| Comment by Junyi Xie [ 03/Oct/12 ] |
|
Just talked to Aliaksey A., it is not hard to implement disabling flush/delete bucket on source side during XDCR, but for destination side, we are not 100% clear how to do that. |
| Comment by Aleksey Kondratenko [ 08/Oct/12 ] |
|
As pointed out above we can not do that at all for incoming xdcr. Plus I had OK from Dipti if it's undefined. .next candidate imho |
| Comment by Peter Wansch [ 08/Oct/12 ] |
| Alk, Dipti wants flush only disabled on the source when replications exist for that bucket. |
| Comment by Dipti Borkar [ 08/Oct/12 ] |
|
Unidirectional Replication
-> Cluster 1 | Bucket A to Cluster 2 | Bucket A => Flush should be disabled on Bucket A on Cluster 1 Two unidirectional Replications -> Cluster 1 | Bucket B to Cluster 2 | Bucket B -> Cluster 2 | Bucket C to Cluster 1 | Bucket C => Flush should be disabled on Bucket B on Cluster 1 => Flush should be disabled on Bucket C on Cluster 1 Bi-directional Replications -> Cluster 1 | Bucket D to Cluster 2 | Bucket D -> Cluster 2 | Bucket D to Cluster 1 | Bucket D => Flush should be disabled on Bucket D on Cluster 1 => Flush should be disabled on Bucket D on Cluster 1 |
| Comment by Aleksey Kondratenko [ 09/Oct/12 ] |
|
http://review.couchbase.org/#/c/21435/ |