Bug 1462281

Summary:	Change the Elasticsearch setting "node.max_local_storage_nodes" to 1 to prevent sharing EBS volumes
Product:	OpenShift Container Platform	Reporter:	Rich Megginson <rmeggins>
Component:	Logging	Assignee:	Jeff Cantrill <jcantril>
Status:	CLOSED DUPLICATE	QA Contact:	Xia Zhao <xiazhao>
Severity:	high	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	3.5.1	CC:	aos-bugs, jcantril, pportant, rmeggins, rromerom, xiazhao
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	3.5.z
Hardware:	All
OS:	All
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:	1462277	Environment:
Last Closed:	2017-06-30 17:18:09 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:	1460564, 1462277, 1463046
Bug Blocks:

Description Rich Megginson 2017-06-16 15:14:32 UTC

+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #1462277 +++

+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #1460564 +++

Change the setting for node.max_local_storage_nodes to 1 for all ES pods, as this would prevent us from seeing problems where two ES pods end up sharing the same EBS volume if one pod does not shut down properly.

For an example of this, see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1443350#c33

See discussion from https://discuss.elastic.co/t/multiple-folders-inside-nodes-folder/85358, and the documentation at https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/elasticsearch/reference/2.4/modules-node.html#max-local-storage-nodes.

Comment 1 Jeff Cantrill 2017-06-21 00:24:55 UTC

Upstream PR: https://github.com/openshift/openshift-ansible/pull/4502

Comment 3 Xia Zhao 2017-06-30 05:51:33 UTC

@Rich

Seems this bz is exactly the same with https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1463046, can we resolve it as duplicated?

Thanks,
Xia

Comment 4 Rich Megginson 2017-06-30 16:08:59 UTC

(In reply to Xia Zhao from comment #3)
> @Rich
> 
> Seems this bz is exactly the same with
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1463046, can we resolve it as
> duplicated?
> 
> Thanks,
> Xia

I'm not sure.  Is it possible that one bug is for 3.5 and the other is for 3.6?