-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 720
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Hot write may break the constraint of placement policy #7848
Labels
affects-5.4
affects-6.1
affects-6.5
affects-7.1
affects-7.5
affects-8.1
report/customer
Customers have encountered this bug.
type/enhancement
The issue or PR belongs to an enhancement.
Comments
rleungx
changed the title
Hot write will break the constraint of placement policy
Hot write may break the constraint of placement policy
Feb 23, 2024
/cc @lhy1024 |
1 task
ti-chi-bot bot
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Feb 26, 2024
ref #7848 Signed-off-by: Ryan Leung <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: ti-chi-bot[bot] <108142056+ti-chi-bot[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
ti-chi-bot
pushed a commit
to ti-chi-bot/pd
that referenced
this issue
Mar 31, 2024
ref tikv#7848 Signed-off-by: ti-chi-bot <[email protected]>
ti-chi-bot bot
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Apr 12, 2024
close #7848 Signed-off-by: lhy1024 <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: ti-chi-bot[bot] <108142056+ti-chi-bot[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
ti-chi-bot
pushed a commit
to ti-chi-bot/pd
that referenced
this issue
Apr 12, 2024
close tikv#7848 Signed-off-by: ti-chi-bot <[email protected]>
1 task
ti-chi-bot bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Apr 15, 2024
close #7848 Signed-off-by: ti-chi-bot <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: lhy1024 <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: lhy1024 <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: lhy1024 <[email protected]>
ti-chi-bot
pushed a commit
to ti-chi-bot/pd
that referenced
this issue
May 7, 2024
close tikv#7848 Signed-off-by: ti-chi-bot <[email protected]>
1 task
ti-chi-bot bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
May 20, 2024
close #7848 Signed-off-by: lhy1024 <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: lhy1024 <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: lhy1024 <[email protected]>
/found customer |
ti-chi-bot
pushed a commit
to ti-chi-bot/pd
that referenced
this issue
Jun 4, 2024
close tikv#7848 Signed-off-by: ti-chi-bot <[email protected]>
1 task
ti-chi-bot
pushed a commit
to ti-chi-bot/pd
that referenced
this issue
Jul 29, 2024
close tikv#7848 Signed-off-by: ti-chi-bot <[email protected]>
1 task
ti-chi-bot bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jul 29, 2024
close #7848 Signed-off-by: ti-chi-bot <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: lhy1024 <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: lhy1024 <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: lhy1024 <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Labels
affects-5.4
affects-6.1
affects-6.5
affects-7.1
affects-7.5
affects-8.1
report/customer
Customers have encountered this bug.
type/enhancement
The issue or PR belongs to an enhancement.
Enhancement Task
Consider we have two zones: z1 and z2. And store 1 and 2 in z1, store 3, 4, 5, 6 is in z2. We use the following placement policy:
On the PD side, it will synchronize two rules one is the
leader
rule, and the other is thevoter
rule. The hot write peer scheduling might break the constraint, and create the following operator:But if we use another placement policy with
evcit-leader
attributeOn the PD side, it will synchronize two rules one is the
leader
rule, and the other is thefollower
rule, then the operator change to:No matter the way we use to config placement policy, the operator should always be the latter one.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: