-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 25.3k
Optimise shared-blob-cache evictions #126581
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
nicktindall
merged 34 commits into
elastic:main
from
nicktindall:evict_from_the_shared_blob_cache_asynchronously
May 27, 2025
Merged
Changes from 21 commits
Commits
Show all changes
34 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
c86859c
Evict from the shared blob cache asynchronously
nicktindall c143dba
Only evict from shared cache when index is partial (SharedSnapshotInd…
nicktindall a62ac00
Update docs/changelog/126581.yaml
nicktindall 6ae1e7c
Merge branch 'main' into evict_from_the_shared_blob_cache_asynchronously
nicktindall ff3a25d
Fix changelog
nicktindall 2ef16c9
Update x-pack/plugin/blob-cache/src/main/java/org/elasticsearch/blobc…
nicktindall d3ce506
Fix indenting
nicktindall bd35686
evictionsRunner -> asyncEvictionsRunner
nicktindall 83c1bda
Merge branch 'main' into evict_from_the_shared_blob_cache_asynchronously
nicktindall 632afbc
Only evict asynchronously for shards we know are not coming back
nicktindall 3274c1c
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into evict_from_the_shared…
nicktindall 253dba1
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into evict_from_the_shared…
nicktindall f035f25
Merge branch 'main' into evict_from_the_shared_blob_cache_asynchronously
nicktindall 7ac3220
Propagate IndexRemovalReason to deletion listeners
nicktindall 8e18644
Fix naming (reasonMessage/reason)
nicktindall 410fb35
Fix naming (reasonText/reason)
nicktindall 2372056
Naming
nicktindall 8c91b45
[CI] Auto commit changes from spotless
elasticsearchmachine 87d1ba4
Naming/javadoc
nicktindall ea43b2d
randomReason()
nicktindall c6e7a05
Don't evict shards when IndexRemovalReason is FAILURE
nicktindall 7eebc42
javadoc/naming
nicktindall 250df4c
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into evict_from_the_shared…
nicktindall d3cd806
Make IndexRemovalReason a top-level enum for sharing
nicktindall 5eabc0f
Fix eviction logic
nicktindall 53ad877
Comment
nicktindall fa17c66
Fix eviction logic
nicktindall 69e748f
Improve change summary
nicktindall f498216
Merge branch 'main' into evict_from_the_shared_blob_cache_asynchronously
nicktindall 185b390
Merge branch 'main' into evict_from_the_shared_blob_cache_asynchronously
nicktindall c2f3b0f
Add tests
nicktindall 63f4b1f
Work with any number of nodes
nicktindall cd09f7d
Randomise number of docs
nicktindall 69eb2e5
Merge branch 'main' into evict_from_the_shared_blob_cache_asynchronously
nicktindall 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
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ | ||
pr: 126581 | ||
summary: Evict from the shared blob cache asynchronously | ||
area: Snapshot/Restore | ||
type: enhancement | ||
issues: [] |
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.
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.
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.
This may be a mis-categorisation as
FAILURE
. The javadoc seems to suggest it's deleting remnants of a different shard rather than the shard being created, due to a name collision. So we're deleting not because the shard failed to start, but to clear old state from a shard that used to have the same name as the one being started.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.
I think it's OK to use
FAILURE
, but maybe worth a comment?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.
Actually the more I look at it I think it's vanilla enough to use without comment. It's just clearing some bad state which is the same as all the other cases. The fact that bad state came from an earlier event is kind of irrelevant.