-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 25.4k
Breakdown undesired allocations by shard routing role #132235
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
Open
nicktindall
wants to merge
12
commits into
elastic:main
Choose a base branch
from
nicktindall:undesired_by_tier
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+99
−37
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
12 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
2806d30
Breakdown undesired allocations by tier
nicktindall 0ee7997
Merge branch 'main' into undesired_by_tier
nicktindall 24c2887
Break down by shard routing role instead of tier
nicktindall 5fbd316
Merge remote-tracking branch 'nt-elastic/main' into undesired_by_tier
nicktindall 47c4516
Remove remaining cruft
nicktindall 5ba30bb
Naming
nicktindall 5fb7f21
Only output roles that have undesired allocations
nicktindall e614d67
Merge branch 'main' into undesired_by_tier
nicktindall bef60ec
Break down allocation stats by tier for IngestMetricsService
nicktindall 78ee79a
Return undesired allocations ratio as double (to match setting)
nicktindall 89eee2c
Tidy up DesiredBalanceMetrics
nicktindall 6f41c89
Only publish when node is master AND we have done a reconciliation
nicktindall File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
if you're going with replacing totals with the role-based map, doesn't the current version implicitly assume default and search_only/index_only are exclusive? Shouldn't we assert that either the counts for default are empty or for both search_only/index_only, so that when this assumption is not valid
totalAllocations()
andundesiredAllocationsExcludingShuttingDownNodes()
wouldn't silently return something wrong? That's what I was saying in my previous comment.