Bug 1462281 - Change the Elasticsearch setting "node.max_local_storage_nodes" to 1 to prevent sharing EBS volumes
Summary: Change the Elasticsearch setting "node.max_local_storage_nodes" to 1 to preve...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 1463046
Alias: None
Product: OpenShift Container Platform
Classification: Red Hat
Component: Logging
Version: 3.5.1
Hardware: All
OS: All
unspecified
high
Target Milestone: ---
: 3.5.z
Assignee: Jeff Cantrill
QA Contact: Xia Zhao
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On: 1460564 1462277 1463046
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2017-06-16 15:14 UTC by Rich Megginson
Modified: 2017-06-30 17:18 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of: 1462277
Environment:
Last Closed: 2017-06-30 17:18:09 UTC
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Product Errata RHBA-2017:1640 0 normal SHIPPED_LIVE OpenShift Container Platform 3.5 and 3.4 bug fix update 2017-07-11 14:47:16 UTC

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?


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.