[dbnode] DB Close Wait for Fs Processes #2229
Conversation
src/dbnode/storage/mediator.go
Outdated
| tickCheckInterval = 5 * time.Second | ||
| fileOpCheckInterval = time.Second | ||
| tickCheckInterval = 5 * time.Second | ||
| completionCheckInterval = 1 * time.Second |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could even make this every 100ms since it only happens on close. I remember the kill signal only gives us 10s to exit so the faster the better I suppose.
src/dbnode/storage/mediator.go
Outdated
| "ongoing tick was unable to release time barrier", zap.Error(err)) | ||
| continue | ||
| log.Error("ongoing tick was unable to release time barrier", zap.Error(err)) | ||
| return |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hm, think this should still be a continue yeah?
src/dbnode/storage/mediator.go
Outdated
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (m *mediator) databaseState() databaseState { | ||
| db := m.database.(*db) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hm this seems racy without acquiring a lock, also better to add to interface rather than casting to *db.
Could you add a public method to type Database interface just called IsOpen() bool?
That way we can do the read lock from there too.
robskillington
changed the title
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## r/fail-build-with-flush-erros #2229 +/- ##
===============================================================
+ Coverage 71.1% 72.4% +1.2%
===============================================================
Files 1021 1022 +1
Lines 88855 88892 +37
===============================================================
+ Hits 63254 64366 +1112
+ Misses 21258 20190 -1068
+ Partials 4343 4336 -7
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
notbdu
force-pushed
the
bdu/wait-fs-processes
branch
2 times, most recently
from
a7a157a to
3988202
Compare
notbdu
force-pushed
the
bdu/wait-fs-processes
branch
from
3988202 to
c5cdfc5
Compare
What this PR does / why we need it:
Waits for fs processes to finish before closing db. Also checks db state before running a tick of fs processes.
Special notes for your reviewer:
Does this PR introduce a user-facing and/or backwards incompatible change?:
Does this PR require updating code package or user-facing documentation?: