-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 25.3k
Add max_single_primary_size as a condition for the ILM rollover action #68917
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
Merged
joegallo
merged 11 commits into
elastic:master
from
joegallo:ilm-rollover-max-single-shard-size
Feb 18, 2021
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
11 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
6e12dce
Cleanup: this is just readOptionalVLong/writeOptionalVLong
joegallo 21f0cdf
Whitespace
joegallo 357d643
Order things a little more consistently (size, age, docs)
joegallo a9b2a36
Add max_single_primary_size to ILM's rollover action
joegallo 7d74176
And into the client
joegallo dd286da
Add an integration test
joegallo 66b94d3
Add max_single_primary_size to the ilm rollover docs
joegallo 4393939
Simplify testRolloverActionWithMaxSinglePrimarySize
joegallo 2ad066c
assertBusy a little more consistently here, and for 30s
joegallo 1e89d78
Merge branch 'master' into ilm-rollover-max-single-shard-size
joegallo 90bc3cc
Don't need refresh anymore
joegallo 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
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.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
would it make sense to validate that
maxSinglePrimarySize
is lte tomaxSize
?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.
IMHO no -- we don't sanity check the other things (e.g.
maxDocs
1 paired withmaxSize
10,000GB is just as valid asmaxDocs
10,000 withmaxSize
1 byte -- at least AFAICT), so I think we should be similarly lenient withmaxSinglePrimarySize
.