Hi Grégoire A couple of comments:
> 2. at some point (disk on ssds is above 65%), one copy is moved to larger boxes (1 copy is still on ssd to help search, 1 copy on large box) Allocation awareness causes elasticsearch to spread the shards copies across the different values of the attribute. However, it also changes the search behavior in the sense that it tries to execute searches on nodes that have the same attributes as the one that initially got the search. In your case it means that if an ssd node got the search, it will run on SSD otherwise it will on iodisk. I'm not sure this is what you want. > 2. At some point, I drop the requirement (effectively > *routing.allocation.require: **). I expect flavor awareness to move one copy to large (iodisk) boxes. ES tries the balance shards from the cluster perspective. It gives some weight to spreading up the shards of an index but this just one parameter.In your cases I suspect you have way more shards on the iodisk nodes than on the ssds, which means that balancing will try to move shards from iodisks to ssds if it can but not the other way around (as you expect). > are awareness and filtering supposed to cooperate? I think they should but I'm not sure it will achieve what you want to do - see comment above. That said, I can confirm that shard allocation awareness and filtering on the same attribute may be in each other way. I would suggest you open an issue on github indicating that when shard allocation awareness is causing unassigned shards if one of the attribute values is blocked by an allocation filter (doesn't matter which filter is being used). You would expect it to behave the same as if the nodes were down (in which case the shards will be assigned). Try to give a concise reproduction using two different attributes for filtering and awareness. Cheers, Boaz On Saturday, October 18, 2014 8:37:29 PM UTC+2, Grégoire Seux wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Grégoire Seux > <[email protected]> wrote: > >- are awareness and filtering supposed to cooperate? > > A quick look at the code confirm that allocation deciders are fully > orthogonal. > Should I open a github issue to discuss adding support for cooperating > deciders ? > > -- > Grégoire Seux > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "elasticsearch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/b6cc56d4-f2aa-403c-a46e-54c34b3a41a9%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
