search

zxs / tungsten-replicator

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/tungsten-replicator
0 stars 0 forks source link

Replicator forgets offline request after state change #595

Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
What steps will reproduce the problem?

1. User is replicating a backup restore to the slave with parallel apply enable.

2. Schedules an offline-deferred at the end of the backup in order to 
reconfigure parallel channels to 1.

3. Replicator goes OFFLINE:ERROR due to some problem.

4. User fixes it up and puts it back ONLINE.

5. User is hoping that offline request is still there, but it isn't. Backup 
restore finishes, user doesn't turn off parallel apply, live data starts to be 
replicated and this causes inconsistencies and three days of provisioning 
operation goes through the window.

What is the expected output?

Even after going OFFLINE:ERROR Replicator remembering previous offline request.

What do you see instead?

Replicator forgets an offline-deferred request if, in the mean time, it went 
OFFLINE:ERROR.

What is the possible cause?

Currently offline requests are stored in-memory within a single pipeline and 
disappear when the pipeline goes offline. 

What is the proposed solution?

However, we can make them persistent.  We do have a DBMS nearby, after all.

Additional information

Though it might be explained by how the Replicator transfers states, from 
user's perspective it is unexpected.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by linas.vi...@continuent.com on 17 May 2013 at 4:52

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Moving to 2.1.2

Original comment by linas.vi...@continuent.com on 21 Aug 2013 at 12:59

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by linas.vi...@continuent.com on 26 Aug 2013 at 1:54

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
There won't be a 2.1.3.

Original comment by linas.vi...@continuent.com on 17 Sep 2013 at 10:13

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
This is useful for provisioning but we can't get to it in the 2.2.0 release.

Original comment by robert.h...@continuent.com on 11 Dec 2013 at 4:39

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
This needs to be fixed by putting offline requests into a persistent store.  
This is easier to implement once 3.0 data sources are fully available.

Original comment by robert.h...@continuent.com on 5 May 2014 at 11:25

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Will not use third version digit for normal releases anymore. It will only be 
increment for maintenance ones.

Original comment by linas.vi...@continuent.com on 26 May 2014 at 5:01

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by linas.vi...@continuent.com on 19 Jan 2015 at 2:18