From 415ff6ab2121b79403de4d239adfe083f8de4b8a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: James Rodewig Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2023 13:49:59 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] [8.9] [DOC+] ILM min_age interpretation (#98245) (#98853) Co-authored-by: Abdon Pijpelink Co-authored-by: Stef Nestor <26751266+stefnestor@users.noreply.github.com> fixes) in 2021 and we later ported errors to [this doc](https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/elasticsearch/reference/master/index-lifecycle-error-handling.html) via https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch/issues/75849, the remaining top-gotcha user's raise is "Common issue 3" that ILM's `min_age` calculates off rollover time fallback index creation time. --- docs/reference/ilm/error-handling.asciidoc | 14 ++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+) diff --git a/docs/reference/ilm/error-handling.asciidoc b/docs/reference/ilm/error-handling.asciidoc index 9b9ccdfc7dff7..da76e475c9d14 100644 --- a/docs/reference/ilm/error-handling.asciidoc +++ b/docs/reference/ilm/error-handling.asciidoc @@ -149,6 +149,20 @@ POST /my-index-000001/_ilm/retry {ilm-init} subsequently attempts to re-run the step that failed. You can use the <> to monitor the progress. + +[discrete] +=== Common {ilm-init} setting issues + +[discrete] +==== How `min_age` is calculated + +When setting up an <> or <>, be aware that`min_age` can be relative to either the rollover time or the index creation time. + +If you use <>, `min_age` is calculated relative to the time the index was rolled over. This is because the <> generates a new index. The `creation_date` of the new index (retrievable via <>) is used in the calculation. If you do not use rollover in the {ilm-init} policy, `min_age` is calculated relative to the `creation_date` of the original index. + +You can override how `min_age` is calculated using the `index.lifecycle.origination_date` and `index.lifecycle.parse_origination_date` <>. + + [discrete] === Common {ilm-init} errors