-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 726
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
Scatter: make peer scatter logic same with the leader #6965
Conversation
Signed-off-by: bufferflies <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: bufferflies <[email protected]>
[REVIEW NOTIFICATION] This pull request has been approved by:
To complete the pull request process, please ask the reviewers in the list to review by filling The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. Reviewer can indicate their review by submitting an approval review. |
Signed-off-by: bufferflies <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: bufferflies <[email protected]>
6ff1e36
to
3540f71
Compare
Signed-off-by: bufferflies <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: bufferflies <[email protected]>
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #6965 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 74.33% 74.47% +0.13%
==========================================
Files 433 427 -6
Lines 46097 45339 -758
==========================================
- Hits 34265 33764 -501
+ Misses 8830 8616 -214
+ Partials 3002 2959 -43
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. |
/check-issue-triage-complete |
Signed-off-by: bufferflies <[email protected]>
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.
Which branches do we need to cherry pick
will follow pingcap/tidb#46156. |
/merge |
@bufferflies: It seems you want to merge this PR, I will help you trigger all the tests: /run-all-tests You only need to trigger
Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the ti-community-infra/tichi repository. |
This pull request has been accepted and is ready to merge. Commit hash: 9783c53
|
@bufferflies: Your PR was out of date, I have automatically updated it for you. If the CI test fails, you just re-trigger the test that failed and the bot will merge the PR for you after the CI passes. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the ti-community-infra/tichi repository. |
In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch |
close tikv#6962 Signed-off-by: ti-chi-bot <[email protected]>
In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch |
close tikv#6962 Signed-off-by: ti-chi-bot <[email protected]>
In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch |
close tikv#6962 Signed-off-by: ti-chi-bot <[email protected]>
close #6962 In past, PD conside peer distribution in the different group influenece by using `TotalCountByStore` , but not include the leader distribution. The max used situation is partition table. After this pr, TIDB call scatter api will use same group not different. ref: #3422 pingcap/tidb#46156 Signed-off-by: ti-chi-bot <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: bufferflies <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: buffer <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: bufferflies <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: ti-chi-bot[bot] <108142056+ti-chi-bot[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
for _, store := range stores { | ||
storeCount := context.selectedPeer.TotalCountByStore(store.GetID()) | ||
storeCount := context.selectedPeer.Get(store.GetID(), group) | ||
if store.GetID() == peer.GetId() { |
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.
if store.GetID() == peer.GetStoreId() {
close #6962 In past, PD conside peer distribution in the different group influenece by using `TotalCountByStore` , but not include the leader distribution. The max used situation is partition table. After this pr, TIDB call scatter api will use same group not different. ref: #3422 pingcap/tidb#46156 Signed-off-by: ti-chi-bot <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: bufferflies <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: buffer <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: bufferflies <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: ti-chi-bot[bot] <108142056+ti-chi-bot[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
close #6962 In past, PD conside peer distribution in the different group influenece by using `TotalCountByStore` , but not include the leader distribution. The max used situation is partition table. After this pr, TIDB call scatter api will use same group not different. ref: #3422 pingcap/tidb#46156 Signed-off-by: ti-chi-bot <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: bufferflies <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: buffer <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: bufferflies <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: ti-chi-bot[bot] <108142056+ti-chi-bot[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
close tikv#6962 In past, PD conside peer distribution in the different group influenece by using `TotalCountByStore` , but not include the leader distribution. The max used situation is partition table. After this pr, TIDB call scatter api will use same group not different. ref: tikv#3422 pingcap/tidb#46156 Signed-off-by: bufferflies <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: ti-chi-bot[bot] <108142056+ti-chi-bot[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
What problem does this PR solve?
Issue Number: Close #6962
What is changed and how does it work?
Check List
Tests
Code changes
Side effects
Related changes
Release note