Bogdan Kanivets

This flag was introduced here https://github.com/etcd-io/etcd/pull/12941

@serathius I think we should make this flag optional (remove `experimental`) As a feature it looks safe to me. The only concern is if people actually use this. I've tried...

>How will etcd cluster behave in case of sudden power loss of one node with SSD disk which has only DRAM volatile (no battery) write cache? I think this falls...

Flag was originally added here https://github.com/etcd-io/etcd/pull/13236 Before the value was hardcoded to 300. The need for the flag is clear - depending on latency, one can have too much noise...

I'll submit PR shortly, please assign this to me

3.3.* is end of life. Can you try this in 3.5.*? Similar to this reply https://github.com/etcd-io/etcd/issues/13918#issuecomment-1096845232

I've mentioned https://github.com/etcd-io/etcd/issues/13918#issuecomment-1096845232 as an example of end of life comment. The issue isn't related. Maybe I should find a better reference in the docs.

This PR adds a delay to raft.advance to show that raftLog.applied can be incremented after grpc request returns. https://github.com/etcd-io/etcd/issues/14040

from the log >logger.go:130: 2022-05-19T12:51:12.712-0700 INFO m0 applied a configuration change through raft {"member": "m0", "local-member-id": "5fccebd588516459", "raft-conf-change": "ConfChangeAddLearnerNode", "raft-conf-change-node-id": "fdbbbfa75c90a874"} >logger.go:130: 2022-05-19T12:51:12.712-0700 INFO m0.raft 5fccebd588516459 ignoring conf change {ConfChangeRemoveNode...

@ahrtr I've paused, but would like to submit a fix. Give me till the end of the week.