Summary: osaf: Improve etcd plugin to be tolerant of new etcd leader election
[#3226]
Review request for Ticket(s): 3226
Peer Reviewer(s): Thang
Pull request to: *** LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE ***
Affected branch(es): develop
Development branch: ticket-3226
Base revision: 2c13c9ea579dc064b1d6adcce98d62efb3d0032d
Personal repository: git://git.code.sf.net/u/minh-chau/review
--------------------------------
Impacted area Impact y/n
--------------------------------
Docs n
Build system n
RPM/packaging n
Configuration files n
Startup scripts n
SAF services y
OpenSAF services n
Core libraries n
Samples n
Tests n
Other n
NOTE: Patch(es) contain lines longer than 80 characers
Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above):
---------------------------------------------
*** EXPLAIN/COMMENT THE PATCH SERIES HERE ***
revision 91d67f10553661b9af59d62649f89a4f14e47efd
Author: Minh Chau <minh.c...@dektech.com.au>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 07:47:19 +1100
osaf: Improve etcd plugin to be tolerant of new etcd leader election [#3226]
In the event of network partitioning that results in new etcd leader
change, the 'get' api in the bigger partition is not available for a
few seconds. Therefore, the SC in bigger partition can not promote
but self-fence instead.
This patch adds etcd_tolerance_timeout so the SC in bigger partition
can retry the promotion. However, the SC meanwhile in the smaller
partiton also shares the same etcd_tolerance_timeout retries, hence
the etcd_tolerance_timeout delays the self-fence of SC in smaller
partition. The patch therefore checks the healthiness of self endpoint
where the SC should apply the etcd_tolerance_timeout retries.
Complete diffstat:
------------------
src/osaf/consensus/plugins/etcd3.plugin | 44 +++++++++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
Testing Commands:
-----------------
*** LIST THE COMMAND LINE TOOLS/STEPS TO TEST YOUR CHANGES ***
Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
*** PASTE COMMAND OUTPUTS / TEST RESULTS ***
Conditions of Submission:
-------------------------
*** HOW MANY DAYS BEFORE PUSHING, CONSENSUS ETC ***
Arch Built Started Linux distro
-------------------------------------------
mips n n
mips64 n n
x86 n n
x86_64 n n
powerpc n n
powerpc64 n n
Reviewer Checklist:
-------------------
[Submitters: make sure that your review doesn't trigger any checkmarks!]
Your checkin has not passed review because (see checked entries):
___ Your RR template is generally incomplete; it has too many blank entries
that need proper data filled in.
___ You have failed to nominate the proper persons for review and push.
___ Your patches do not have proper short+long header
___ You have grammar/spelling in your header that is unacceptable.
___ You have exceeded a sensible line length in your headers/comments/text.
___ You have failed to put in a proper Trac Ticket # into your commits.
___ You have incorrectly put/left internal data in your comments/files
(i.e. internal bug tracking tool IDs, product names etc)
___ You have not given any evidence of testing beyond basic build tests.
Demonstrate some level of runtime or other sanity testing.
___ You have ^M present in some of your files. These have to be removed.
___ You have needlessly changed whitespace or added whitespace crimes
like trailing spaces, or spaces before tabs.
___ You have mixed real technical changes with whitespace and other
cosmetic code cleanup changes. These have to be separate commits.
___ You need to refactor your submission into logical chunks; there is
too much content into a single commit.
___ You have extraneous garbage in your review (merge commits etc)
___ You have giant attachments which should never have been sent;
Instead you should place your content in a public tree to be pulled.
___ You have too many commits attached to an e-mail; resend as threaded
commits, or place in a public tree for a pull.
___ You have resent this content multiple times without a clear indication
of what has changed between each re-send.
___ You have failed to adequately and individually address all of the
comments and change requests that were proposed in the initial review.
___ You have a misconfigured ~/.gitconfig file (i.e. user.name, user.email etc)
___ Your computer have a badly configured date and time; confusing the
the threaded patch review.
___ Your changes affect IPC mechanism, and you don't present any results
for in-service upgradability test.
___ Your changes affect user manual and documentation, your patch series
do not contain the patch that updates the Doxygen manual.
_______________________________________________
Opensaf-devel mailing list
Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
