-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 25.6k
Remove rolling restart checks for x-pack #93843
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
Closed
jakelandis
wants to merge
3
commits into
elastic:main
from
jakelandis:remove_xpack_rolling_restart_checks
Closed
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
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
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
103 changes: 0 additions & 103 deletions
103
x-pack/plugin/core/src/test/java/org/elasticsearch/xpack/core/XPackPluginTests.java
This file was deleted.
Oops, something went wrong.
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
I think we still need this node attribute because we will sometimes be forming clusters with an older master node, and older versions still require this attribute.
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.
What is the scenario when an older master node (say 7.1) be running when trying to form/keep a cluster for new data nodes (say 8.7) ? Wouldn't that effectively be a rolling upgrade from from 7.1 OSS -> 8.7 which is not supported.
If there was some scenerio where you had a 7.1 master running with 8.7 nodes trying to join it would only be an issue for 7.1 OSS since if you had x-pack installed in 7.1 these checks are short circuited. I'm not sure exactly how the issue would manifest itself for a 7.1 OSS master but I don't think it would could brick a cluster state and would expect at worst some x-pack features to not work until you upgrade your master. If you have a specific scenario in mind I can execute a manual test.
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.
Yes 7.1/8.7 mixed clusters are not valid, but AIUI even 8.6 masters will require this attribute.
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.
Sorry if I am dense, but I still don't see how it is required. When a cluster is running in 8.6 it will install the x-pack bits (mostly likely the license bits) such that the node attribute check is not needed. So when you are on a non-mixed cluster with the default distribution (post 7.12), the attribute is never read again (for this purpose). However, if it is read it will (correctly) return as missing/false. For cluster formation and other apis (like _cat/nodeattrs), it is fine since we expect node attributes to come and go (unlike fixed settings). I think the only scenario is an 8.6 running a custom distribution that only includes the OSS build and then they are trying to upgrade our default distribution. (which is isn't supported and not catastrophic)
I did a manual rolling restart test and all went well and our other upgrade tests should also any catch issues (I hope).
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 form a cluster with an 8.6.2 master and an 8.8.0-SNAPSHOT node running from this branch then various APIs do not work:
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.
OK I see now ... the scenario is a brand new cluster but with an elder version for the master node. I didn't realize that was supported (or at least not-not-supported). I only tested forming a cluster with non-mixed versions then doing a rolling upgrade holding the master on the elder version (which works fine). That works because when the non-mixed cluster is started the self license gets installed along with the bits needed to short curcuit the check which avoids reading the attribute entirely for subsequent checks. For this scenario (new mixed cluster with elder master) the self license can't be installed due the lack of the attribute and subsequent checks are not short circuited. I will close out this PR ... the goal was just some tech debt clean up and don't want to introduce any risk.
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.
I think this PR is otherwise good, we just need to keep this attribute around until the next major. That would be true no matter when we make this change, so IMO we may as well do this now.
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.
gotcha ... I will re-open and adjust the PR to leave (only) the attribute behind so that for the scenario above the elder master can pass the checks.
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.
the changes here conflict with some other refactoring I am working on and I will come back to this PR once those other refactorings have landed. (it wont cause any functional changes just merge conflicts)