[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-11216?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16514102#comment-16514102
]
hamada commented on SOLR-11216:
-------------------------------
General review comments, some not related to the patch but relevant In general.
PeerSyncWithLeader
use
startingVersions.isEmpty() rather than size() == 0, same for 215
The following try/finally can return, in which case proc is not closed, Is this
intentional, and if so please add a comment to the effect
line 299, consider sizing the List properly to avoid garbage side effect from
growing the list, same applies to line 317
HttpShardHandler.java
if (urls.size()==0) { with if (urls.isEmpty()) {
RecoveryStrategy.java
line 223 and 613, 235 (on
core.getDeletionPolicy().getLatestCommit().getGeneration()) may result in an
NPE
line 436
SolrQueryRequest req = new LocalSolrQueryRequest(core,
new ModifiableSolrParams());
request is not safely closed, is this intentional? won't this break the
reference count mechanism?
> Make PeerSync more robust
> -------------------------
>
> Key: SOLR-11216
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-11216
> Project: Solr
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Security Level: Public(Default Security Level. Issues are Public)
> Reporter: Cao Manh Dat
> Priority: Major
> Attachments: SOLR-11216.patch, SOLR-11216.patch, SOLR-11216.patch
>
>
> First of all, I will change the issue's title with a better name when I have.
> When digging into SOLR-10126. I found a case that can make peerSync fail.
> * leader and replica receive update from 1 to 4
> * replica stop
> * replica miss updates 5, 6
> * replica start recovery
> ## replica buffer updates 7, 8
> ## replica request versions from leader,
> ## in the same time leader receive update 9, so it will return updates from 1
> to 9 (for request versions) when replica get recent versions ( so it will be
> 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 )
> ## replica do peersync and request updates 5, 6, 9 from leader
> ## replica apply updates 5, 6, 9. Its index does not have update 7, 8 and
> maxVersionSpecified for fingerprint is 9, therefore compare fingerprint will
> fail
> My idea here is why replica request update 9 (step 6) while it knows that
> updates with lower version ( update 7, 8 ) are on its buffering tlog. Should
> we request only updates that lower than the lowest update in its buffering
> tlog ( < 7 )?
> Someone my ask that what if replica won't receive update 9. In that case,
> leader will put the replica into LIR state, so replica will run recovery
> process again.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
