Mirror upstream elastic/elasticsearch#137375 for AI review (snapshot of HEAD tree)#240
Mirror upstream elastic/elasticsearch#137375 for AI review (snapshot of HEAD tree)#240phananh1010 wants to merge 1 commit intoupstream-mainfrom
Conversation
BASE=fa252fa56c17b47c3b45ac81d4e498895361bdb5 HEAD=77a79ae04273283ac37958d5d2b491236b8d8c88 Branch=main
|
@codex review |
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://cdn.statically.io/img/avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| if (forceMergeIndex) { | ||
| steps.add(conditionalSkipCloneStep); | ||
| steps.add(readOnlyStep); | ||
| steps.add(cleanupClonedIndexStep); | ||
| steps.add(generateCloneIndexNameStep); | ||
| steps.add(cloneIndexStep); | ||
| steps.add(waitForClonedIndexGreenStep); | ||
| if (shouldForceMergeOnClone()) { | ||
| steps.add(conditionalSkipCloneStep); | ||
| steps.add(readOnlyStep); | ||
| steps.add(cleanupClonedIndexStep); | ||
| steps.add(generateCloneIndexNameStep); | ||
| steps.add(cloneIndexStep); | ||
| steps.add(waitForClonedIndexGreenStep); | ||
| } | ||
| steps.add(forceMergeStep); | ||
| steps.add(segmentCountStep); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When force_merge_on_clone is set to false, the clone-related steps are skipped but the lifecycle state’s forceMergeCloneIndexName is left untouched. ForceMergeStep, SegmentCountStep, and GenerateSnapshotNameStep still rely on FORCE_MERGE_CLONE_INDEX_NAME_FALLBACK_SUPPLIER, which prefers the stored clone name. If this field was populated by a prior run (the very scenario users are likely in when opting out), the action will continue to force-merge and snapshot the stale clone or fail with IndexNotFoundException after the clone is deleted, defeating the opt-out. The code should clear forceMergeCloneIndexName or ignore it whenever cloning is disabled so that the original index is used.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
1 participant
In elastic#133954, we modified ILM's searchable snapshot action to perform the force-merge on a clone of the index with 0 replicas. This optimization avoids performing the force-merge redundantly on replicas, as the subsequent snapshot operation only looks at primary shards.
We've seen some cases where cloning the index resulted in issues; there was a bug in the clone API that caused shards to be initializing permanently under specific circumstances (fixed by elastic#137096), and cloned shards are unable to be assigned if their source lives on a node that is close/past the low watermark disk threshold (will be fixed soon by the Distributed Coordination team).
Therefore, we implement an opt-out flag that users can configure in the
searchable_snapshotaction of their ILM policy if they don't want to clone the index with 0 replicas before performing the force-merge. We implement an opt-out instead of an opt-in, as we believe these issues to be rather specific (and soon resolved), and the clone is worth doing by default.