Yes, this is the 2nd issue I mentioned, where ES will pick basically any
replica as primary without consideration to which one might be more
'up-to-date'

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 3:57 AM, Evan Tahler <[email protected]> wrote:

> Interesting!
>
> However, the write *may not* be the cause of the data loss here.  Even if
> there was no write while A and B are down, would the recovery process have
> happened the same way?  In some further tests, it still looks like C would
> have overwritten all the data in A and B when they rebooted.
>
> This type of error is easily triggered by garbage collection with large
> data sets, and a server becoming unresponsive for too long. (perhaps the
> cluster kicks out the unresponsive node, or a supervisor restarts the
> application)
>
> On Thursday, October 23, 2014 12:59:00 PM UTC-7, Shikhar Bhushan wrote:
>>
>> Very interesting. The default 'write consistency level' with
>> Elasticsearch is QUORUM, i.e. verify a quorum of replicas for a shard are
>> available before processing a write for it. In this case you were just left
>> with 1 replica, C, and a write happened. So you would think that it should
>> not go through since 2 replicas would be required for quorum. However:
>> https://github.com/elasticsearch/elasticsearch/issues/6482. I think this
>> goes to show this is a real, not a hypothetical problem!
>>
>> But guess what? *Even if this were fixed, and a write to C never
>> happened: *it is still possible that once A & B were back, C could be
>> picked as primary and clobber data. See: https://github.com/
>> elasticsearch/elasticsearch/issues/7572#issuecomment-59983759
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Evan Tahler <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Bump?  I would love to hear some thoughts on this flow, and if there are
>>> any suggestions on how to mitigate it (other than replicating all data to
>>> all nodes).
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, October 14, 2014 3:52:31 PM UTC-7, Evan Tahler wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Mailing List!  I'm a first-time poster, and a long time reader.
>>>>
>>>> We recently had a crash in our ES (1.3.1 on Ubuntu) cluster which
>>>> caused us to loose a significant volume of data.  I have a "theory" on what
>>>> happened to cause this, and I would love to hear your opinions on this, and
>>>> if you have any suggestions to mitigate it.
>>>>
>>>> Here is a simplified play-by-play:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    1. Cluster has 3 data nodes, A, B, and C.  The index has 10
>>>>    shards.  The index has a replica count of 1, so A is the master and B 
>>>> is a
>>>>    replica.  C is doing nothing.  Re-allocation of indexes/shards is 
>>>> enabled.
>>>>    2. A crashes.  B takes over as master, and then starts transferring
>>>>    data to C as a new replica.
>>>>    3. B crashes.  C is now master with an impartial dataset.
>>>>    4. There is a write to the index.
>>>>    5. A and B finally reboot, and they are told that they are now
>>>>    stale (as C had a write while they were away).  Both A and B delete 
>>>> their
>>>>    local data.  A is chosen to be the new replica and re-sync from C.
>>>>    6. ... all the data A and B had which C never got is lost forever.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is the above situation scenario possible?  If it is, it seems like the
>>>> default behavior of ES might be better to not reallocate in this scenario?
>>>> This would have caused the write in step #4 to fail, but in our use case,
>>>> that is preferable to data loss.
>>>>
>>>>  --
>>> 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/58e98223-c036-41e2-b53c-265343fa3173%
>>> 40googlegroups.com
>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/58e98223-c036-41e2-b53c-265343fa3173%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>> .
>>>
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>
>>  --
> 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/5b3c6605-da27-4119-8f1b-6fdcf43b404d%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/elasticsearch/5b3c6605-da27-4119-8f1b-6fdcf43b404d%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
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/CAHWG4DPL6Amht_M7dOkZH0izkTAZegB-0awROVwDS35eH-aBaw%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to