Small improvements to resilience design docs #57791
Conversation
A follow-up to elastic#47233 to clarify a few points.
DaveCTurner
added
>docs
|
Pinging @elastic/es-docs (>docs) |
|
Pinging @elastic/es-distributed (:Distributed/Cluster Coordination) |
elasticmachine
added
the
Team:Distributed (Obsolete)
| * At least one copy of every <<scalability,shard>>. | ||
|
|
||
| We also recommend adding a new node to the cluster for each |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
More a requirement than a recommendation; added to the bullet-pointed list so it parallels the next one.
| A resilient cluster requires redundancy for every required cluster component, | ||
| except the elected master node. For resilient clusters, we recommend: | ||
|
|
||
| * One elected master node |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is true, but it's not something the user needs to worry about. As long as you have at least three master-eligible nodes Elasticsearch will look after this point automatically.
| automatically rebuilds any failed shard copies on the remaining nodes in order | ||
| to restore the cluster to full health after a failure. | ||
|
|
||
| Failures temporarily reduce the total capacity of your cluster. In addition, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We mention this in the "larger clusters" section but it applies to all clusters so I thought it'd help to note it here too.
| the node fails, you may need to restore an older copy of any lost indices from a | ||
| <<modules-snapshots,snapshot>>. Because they are not resilient to any failures, | ||
| we do not recommend using one-node clusters in production. | ||
| store your data redundantly. However, by default at least one replica is |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Added "by default" otherwise it's not true since you can have a green cluster with no replicas. My bad, I think this must have been an incomplete edit.
A follow-up to #47233 to clarify a few points.
A follow-up to #47233 to clarify a few points.
A follow-up to #47233 to clarify a few points.
A follow-up to #47233 to clarify a few points.