Updating the Rollover page #2589
Conversation
As per internal feedback, we're updating this page. Fixes #1563
🔍 Preview links for changed docs |
|
Thank you so much for reviewing, @dakrone! I've addressed your comments (hopefully correctly) -- that's been very useful. One thing I think I struggle to understand, and maybe you can help with, is when/under what conditions would a user prefer to rotate their indices using aliases as opposed to data streams? Would that be attributable to legacy reasons mostly or is there a specific problem they would be solving that way? I'm wondering how to provide more context around the when and why one would do that. The text previously said:
And as you've pointed out, documents can be updated or deleted in the backing index that contain them using the API. So this is not a relevant reason for choosing the aliases approach. |
Certainly, the specific reason that users use aliases and ILM is that they can then avoid rollover. For example, if a user does time-based indices, they can have an alias called The main reason that users wish to avoid rollover is to solve the duplicate handling with rollover problem. It's something we plan to address, but it's a real issue for some users. |
|
|
||
| We recommend using [data streams](https://www.elastic.co/docs/api/doc/elasticsearch/operation/operation-indices-create-data-stream) to manage time series data. Data streams automatically track the write index while keeping configuration to a minimum. | ||
| The rollover feature is an important part of how [index lifecycle](../index-lifecycle-management/index-lifecycle.md) (ILM) and [data stream lifecycles](../data-stream.md) (DLM) work to keep your indices fast and manageable. By switching the write target of an index, the rollover action provides the following benefits: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@dakrone I think this and line 19 are based off of your comment. Do you think it's okay for us to introduce "DLM" here as an acronym for "data stream lifecycle management"? I'm a little hesitant since I gather DLM is already in popular use as "data lifecycle management" (e.g. IBM, HP), and our use here specifically to denote "data stream lifecycle" doesn't quite match. That is, to my mind "ILM" and "data stream lifecycle" are two different approaches to DLM.
What would you think of our sticking with:
- index lifecycle management (acronym: "ILM")
- data stream lifecycle (no official acronym)
If we do introduce an acronym for "data stream lifecycle" we should also update this main page about it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think we can stick with ILM to refer to the data stream's lifecycle, since they are different (ILM has policies, is attached at the index level, has separate APIs, is not available in Serverless, etc).
The challenge that we've run into with "data stream lifecycle" is that absent an acronym, folks have been calling it "DSL", which is a MUCH more confusing acronym than "DLM", so we've been substituting DLM for the name to differentiate it from ILM, but still indicate it is the "Data (in the data stream) Lifecycle Management".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Roger that. Thanks for the clarification! DLM it is. :-)
|
Very nice work on this @yetanothertw! |
|
Hi @dakrone, when you get the chance, would you mind having another look at this PR and approve if you're happy that the requested changes were addressed (or request new ones). Many thanks! 🙏 |
As per feedback received and collected in #1563 about the Rollover page, we're updating this page to improve the information quality and relevance.
The content has been restructured into the following sections:
Fixes #1563