Report more details of unobtainable ShardLock #61255
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
Today a common reason for a `ShardLockObtainFailedException` is when a
shard is removed from a node and then assigned straight back to it again
before the node has had a chance to shut the previous shard instance
down. For instance, this can happen if a node briefly leaves the cluster
holding a primary with no in-sync replicas.
The message in this case is typically as follows:
obtaining shard lock timed out after 5000ms, previous lock details: [shard creation] trying to lock for [shard creation]
This is pretty hard to interpret, and doesn't raise the important
question: "why didn't the shard shut down sooner?"
With this change we reword the message a bit, report the age of the
shard lock, and adjust the details to report that the lock is held by a
closing shard:
obtaining shard lock for [starting shard] timed out after [5000ms], lock already held for [closing shard] with age [12345ms]
Relates elastic#38807
DaveCTurner
added
>enhancement
:Distributed/Store
|
Pinging @elastic/es-distributed (:Distributed/Store) |
original-brownbear
approved these changes
Aug 18, 2020
| @@ -854,17 +860,23 @@ private void decWaitCount() { | |||
| void acquire(long timeoutInMillis, final String details) throws ShardLockObtainFailedException { | |||
| try { | |||
| if (mutex.tryAcquire(timeoutInMillis, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS)) { | |||
| lockDetails = details; | |||
| lockDetails = Tuple.tuple(System.nanoTime(), details); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
NIT: setDetails(details);
|
Thanks both |
DaveCTurner
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 19, 2020
Today a common reason for a `ShardLockObtainFailedException` is when a
shard is removed from a node and then assigned straight back to it again
before the node has had a chance to shut the previous shard instance
down. For instance, this can happen if a node briefly leaves the cluster
holding a primary with no in-sync replicas.
The message in this case is typically as follows:
obtaining shard lock timed out after 5000ms, previous lock details: [shard creation] trying to lock for [shard creation]
This is pretty hard to interpret, and doesn't raise the important
question: "why didn't the shard shut down sooner?"
With this change we reword the message a bit, report the age of the
shard lock, and adjust the details to report that the lock is held by a
closing shard:
obtaining shard lock for [starting shard] timed out after [5000ms], lock already held for [closing shard] with age [12345ms]
Relates #38807
61 tasks
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Today a common reason for a
ShardLockObtainFailedExceptionis when ashard is removed from a node and then assigned straight back to it again
before the node has had a chance to shut the previous shard instance
down. For instance, this can happen if a node briefly leaves the cluster
holding a primary with no in-sync replicas.
The message in this case is typically as follows:
This is pretty hard to interpret, and doesn't raise the important
question: "why didn't the shard shut down sooner?"
With this change we reword the message a bit, report the age of the
shard lock, and adjust the details to report that the lock is held by a
closing shard:
Relates #38807