Skip to content
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

[Remote Store] Add setting to limit primary shards per node for an index / all indices #12025

Closed
gbbafna opened this issue Jan 26, 2024 · 5 comments
Labels
enhancement Enhancement or improvement to existing feature or request Storage:Durability Issues and PRs related to the durability framework Storage:Performance

Comments

@gbbafna
Copy link
Collaborator

gbbafna commented Jan 26, 2024

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe

Today we have a setting index.routing.allocation.total_shards_per_node , which can limit maximum number of shards per index/across all indices on a single OpenSearch node. For remote store based clusters, we would also like to limit maximum number of primary shards per index/across all indices . This is because on remote store , only the primaries index the data , while both primaries and replicas serve the search request. Hence ,the primary shards are more CPU heavy , as only they do the indexing .

Describe the solution you'd like

For remote store based clusters, we would also like to limit maximum number of primary shards per index/across all indices .

Related component

Storage:Durability

Describe alternatives you've considered

NA

Additional context

NA

@gbbafna gbbafna added enhancement Enhancement or improvement to existing feature or request untriaged labels Jan 26, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added the Storage:Durability Issues and PRs related to the durability framework label Jan 26, 2024
@andrross
Copy link
Member

This is a general segment replication concern and not specific to remote store, right?

@gbbafna
Copy link
Collaborator Author

gbbafna commented Jan 29, 2024

This is a general segment replication concern and not specific to remote store, right ?

Yes, that is correct Andrew.

@sachinpkale
Copy link
Member

@gbbafna There is a separate issue created to #12250 Do we still need this setting change?

@gbbafna
Copy link
Collaborator Author

gbbafna commented Apr 4, 2024

@sachinpkale : rebalancing is not deterministic . This proposed setting will make things quite deterministic. Want to know thoughts of @Arpit-Bandejiya as well on this.

@gbbafna gbbafna closed this as completed Apr 4, 2024
@gbbafna
Copy link
Collaborator Author

gbbafna commented Apr 4, 2024

[Storage Triage meeting] We don't see the need for this right now. Will revisit when we see the need in future.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement Enhancement or improvement to existing feature or request Storage:Durability Issues and PRs related to the durability framework Storage:Performance
Projects
Status: ✅ Done
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants