* planner: expose ServerMeetsMinimumVersion via Planner interface
* filterByTainted: add flag indicating disconnect support
* allocReconciler: accept and pass disconnect support flag
* tests: update dependent tests
Revert a small part of #11600 after @lgfa29 discovered it would break
compatibility with Nomad <= v1.2!
Nomad <= v1.2 expects the `vsn` tag to exist in Serf. It has always been
`1`. It has no functional purpose. However it causes a parsing error if
it is not set:
https://github.com/hashicorp/nomad/blob/v1.2.6/nomad/util.go#L103-L108
This means Nomad servers at version v1.2 or older will not allow servers
without this tag to join.
The `mvn` minor version tag is also checked, but soft fails. I'm not
setting that because I want as much of this cruft gone as possible.
Nomad inherited protocol version numbering configuration from Consul and
Serf, but unlike those projects Nomad has never used it. Nomad's
`protocol_version` has always been `1`.
While the code is effectively unused and therefore poses no runtime
risks to leave, I felt like removing it was best because:
1. Nomad's RPC subsystem has been able to evolve extensively without
needing to increment the version number.
2. Nomad's HTTP API has evolved extensively without increment
`API{Major,Minor}Version`. If we want to version the HTTP API in the
future, I doubt this is the mechanism we would choose.
3. The presence of the `server.protocol_version` configuration
parameter is confusing since `server.raft_protocol` *is* an important
parameter for operators to consider. Even more confusing is that
there is a distinct Serf protocol version which is included in `nomad
server members` output under the heading `Protocol`. `raft_protocol`
is the *only* protocol version relevant to Nomad developers and
operators. The other protocol versions are either deadcode or have
never changed (Serf).
4. If we were to need to version the RPC, HTTP API, or Serf protocols, I
don't think these configuration parameters and variables are the best
choice. If we come to that point we should choose a versioning scheme
based on the use case and modern best practices -- not this 6+ year
old dead code.
Fixes a deadlock in leadership handling if leadership flapped.
Raft propagates leadership transition to Nomad through a NotifyCh channel.
Raft blocks when writing to this channel, so channel must be buffered or
aggressively consumed[1]. Otherwise, Raft blocks indefinitely in `raft.runLeader`
until the channel is consumed[1] and does not move on to executing follower
related logic (in `raft.runFollower`).
While Raft `runLeader` defer function blocks, raft cannot process any other
raft operations. For example, `run{Leader|Follower}` methods consume
`raft.applyCh`, and while runLeader defer is blocked, all raft log applications
or config lookup will block indefinitely.
Sadly, `leaderLoop` and `establishLeader` makes few Raft calls!
`establishLeader` attempts to auto-create autopilot/scheduler config [3]; and
`leaderLoop` attempts to check raft configuration [4]. All of these calls occur
without a timeout.
Thus, if leadership flapped quickly while `leaderLoop/establishLeadership` is
invoked and hit any of these Raft calls, Raft handler _deadlock_ forever.
Depending on how many times it flapped and where exactly we get stuck, I suspect
it's possible to get in the following case:
* Agent metrics/stats http and RPC calls hang as they check raft.Configurations
* raft.State remains in Leader state, and server attempts to handle RPC calls
(e.g. node/alloc updates) and these hang as well
As we create goroutines per RPC call, the number of goroutines grow over time
and may trigger a out of memory errors in addition to missed updates.
[1] d90d6d6bda/config.go (L190-L193)
[2] d90d6d6bda/raft.go (L425-L436)
[3] 2a89e47746/nomad/leader.go (L198-L202)
[4] 2a89e47746/nomad/leader.go (L877)
Reduce future confusion by introducing a minor version that is gossiped out
via the `mvn` Serf tag (Minor Version Number, `vsn` is already being used for
to communicate `Major Version Number`).
Background: hashicorp/consul/issues/1346#issuecomment-151663152
Derek Strickland