Fix max_primary_shard_size resize factor math #86897
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
joegallo
added
>bug
:Data Management/ILM+SLM
elasticmachine
added
the
Team:Data Management
|
Pinging @elastic/es-data-management (Team:Data Management) |
|
Hi @joegallo, I've created a changelog YAML for you. |
dakrone
approved these changes
May 18, 2022
|
@elasticmachine run elasticsearch-ci/part-2 |
joegallo
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 18, 2022
joegallo
added a commit
to joegallo/elasticsearch
that referenced
this pull request
May 18, 2022
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There's an off-by-one bug in #67705, such that the logic doesn't handle all factors correctly in some circumstances.
For example,
calculateAcceptableNumberOfShards(9, 2)would return 9 rather than 3, because it would evaluate all potential factors up to but not including 3 (<), and not finding such a factor, it would return 9. The correct logic should evaluate all potential factors up to and including 3 (<=), and return 3.