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

feat(docs): adds info about restore and backup/repair tasks interference #4124

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

VAveryanov8
Copy link
Collaborator

@VAveryanov8 VAveryanov8 commented Nov 25, 2024

This extends restore procedure docs with how to avoid conflicts between restore and backup/repair tasks in a cluster.

Fixes: #3742


Please make sure that:

  • Code is split to commits that address a single change
  • Commit messages are informative
  • Commit titles have module prefix
  • Commit titles have issue nr. suffix

This extends restore procedure docs with how to avoid conflicts between
restore and backup/repair tasks in a cluster.

Refs: #3742
@VAveryanov8 VAveryanov8 marked this pull request as ready for review November 26, 2024 15:29
@VAveryanov8
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I'm not sure which SM version will contain changes made in #4122, so I've put 3.5 version in the docs temporarily.

Comment on lines +92 to +94
Starting from Scylla Manager v3.5.0, the restore task will not start if backup or repair tasks are running in the cluster at that time, and vice versa, if backup or repair tasks are running, the restore task will not start.

Prior to 3.5.0, it is advisable to manually make sure that the restore task does not interfere with backup or repair tasks.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

SM docs are versioned per minor version, so there is no need to write things like "starting from version".
On the other hand, I see that you wanted to document previous behavior as well.
So the proper way of handling this would be to create 2 separate PRs:

  • one adding docs about current state (merged to master and branch-3.4)
  • one updating docs with new functionality description (rebased on the first one, merged to master)

@Michal-Leszczynski
Copy link
Collaborator

I'm not sure which SM version will contain changes made in #4122, so I've put 3.5 version in the docs temporarily.

3.5 is a good candidate - we shouldn't put it into 3.4.1 as this is a feature.

@Michal-Leszczynski
Copy link
Collaborator

For docs oriented PRs, It's always good to request a review from someone from the product team (e.g. @annastuchlik). They don't always have the time to go through it, so not all docs related PRs need their approval.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

docs: Issue in page Restore
2 participants