Hi Ruifang, It is not clear to me if you verified that leader1 restarted correctly. Was it able to join the ensemble by following leader2?-FlavioOn Nov 1, 2010, at 8:09 PM, Ruifang Ge wrote:Hi,I started a 5-node zookeeper cluster, then killed the leader (leader1). One of the other server became
I thought we had agreed at some point that the application should do it in the case it needs this feature. That is, every so often the app writer either writes to ZooKeeper its last confirmed write or it sends directly to the reader. Knowing a confirmed write x enables the reader to read up to
We don't have dynamic configuration yet, but it is on our todo list: http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/ZooKeeper/ClusterMembershipso for now I believe you would have to reconfigure manually and restart the cluster. For Zab, you should be looking at org.apache.zookeeper.server.quorum.Cheers,-FlavioOn
Thanks for your questions, Amit.
On Sep 28, 2010, at 6:37 PM, amit jaiswal wrote:
Hi,
I am experimenting with BookKeeper and have a question on
LedgerHandler class.
The readEntries(firstEntry, lastEntry) method takes the indexes of
first and
last entries. Also, the LedgerSequence object
? Would it result in considerable performance impact due to network latency? I hope that at least in theory since quorum can be reached without ack from EC2 node performance impact might be manageable.Regards,SergeiOn 07/14/2010 04:52 PM, Flavio Junqueira wrote:Hi Sergei, I'm not sure what
Hi Sergei, I'm not sure what the implementation of QuorumVerifier you have in mind would look like to make your setting work. Even if you don't have partitions, variation in message delays can cause inconsistencies in your ZooKeeper cluster. Keep in mind that we make the assumption that quorums
Hi Travis, Do you think it would be possible for you to open a jira and upload your logs?Thanks,-FlavioOn Jul 1, 2010, at 8:13 AM, Travis Crawford wrote:Hey zookeepers -We just experienced a total zookeeper outage, and here's a quickpost-mortem of the issue, and some questions about preventing it
Hi Charity, This is certainly not expected. It would be very useful if
you could provide us with as much information about your issue as
possible. I would suggest that either you create a new jira and link
it to ZOOKEEPER-335, or that you add to 335 directly.
We'll be looking further into
Just in case anyone is interested, I've posted some BookKeeper
performance figures here:
http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/BookKeeperPerfPage
I'll be adding more numbers soon.
-Flavio
Hi Sudipto, I'm sorry but I don't have slides I can share that include
a description of leader election. I'll work on it when I have a
chance. In any case, you may consider inspecting the code if you need
it urgently.
-Flavio
On May 13, 2010, at 10:54 PM, Sudipto Das wrote:
Thanks
Hi Chen, Let's say that the value of a znode /test is initially v
and client A writes value v' to znode /test. If the server that
client B is connected to has not persisted the update operation of A,
it will read v. If it submits sync before the read, client B will read
v'.
-Flavio
On
On top of Ben's description, you probably need to set initLimit to
several minutes to transfer 700MB (worst case). The value of
syncLimit, however, does not need to be that large.
-Flavio
On Mar 15, 2010, at 7:24 PM, Benjamin Reed wrote:
it is a bit confusing but initLimit is the timer
Hi Nick, Your assessment sounds correct, the issue seems to be caused
by the bug described in ZOOKEEPER-427. Can't you upgrade to a newer
release? Killing the leader should do it, but the bug will still be
there, so I recommend upgrading.
Thanks,
-Flavio
On Jan 12, 2010, at 10:52 PM, Nick
We just need a unique identifier for every server. If such an
identifier magically appears somehow, then I believe our protocols
will be equally happy. Now, a mechanism to assign ids would also have
to take into consideration the group scheme we have for hierarchical
quorums. To assign
I forgot to mention this. You may also consider adding more zookeeper
servers and setting the weight of such servers to zero. We will be
introducing this possibility in 3.2.1 (the upcoming release). Zero-
weight servers simulate observers, but they do not behave exactly as a
observers,
: Flavio Junqueira [mailto:f...@yahoo-inc.com]
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 7:48 PM
To: zookeeper-user@hadoop.apache.org
Subject: Re: Unending Leader Elections in WAN deploy
It should be in 479. Perhaps you have a stale version of the patch.
-Flavio
On Jul 31, 2009, at 7:46 PM, Todd Greenwood
Todd,
On Jul 30, 2009, at 5:08 PM, Todd Greenwood wrote:
The build succeeds, but not the all of the tests. In previous test
runs,
I noticed an error in org.apache.zookeeper.test.FLETest. It was not
able
to bind to a port or something. Now, after a machine reboot, I'm
getting
different
Servers in a quorum need to be able to talk to each other to elect a
leader. Once a leader is elected, followers only talk to the leader.
Of course, if the leader fails, servers in some quorum will need to
talk to each other again. If no quorum can be formed, the system is
stalled.
wrote:
Can you submit updates via an observer?
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 6:38 AM, Flavio Junqueira f...@yahoo-inc.com
wrote:
2- Observers: you could have one computing center containing an
ensemble
and observers around the edge just learning committed values.
--
Ted Dunning, CTO
DeepDyve
Hi Bill, I'm sorry, I missed this message initially. I'm sending below
a table that gives you throughput figures for BookKeeper. The rows
correspond to distinct BookKeeper configuration (ensemble size, quorum
size, entry type), and the columns to different values for the length
of an entry
Also, you may consider checking a graph that we posted comparing the
performance of BookKeeper with the one of HDFS using a local file
system and local+NFS in the jira issue 5189 (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-5189
).
-Flavio
On Feb 20, 2009, at 10:05 AM, Flavio Junqueira
You can't simply leave an element in the queue until a consumer
finishes processing it, otherwise multiple consumers may end up
processing it. What about the following:
- Use a failure detector to detect which consumers are up;
- Before removing an element from the queue, a consumer creates
-
Von: Flavio Junqueira [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Montag, 17. November 2008 13:49
An: zookeeper-user@hadoop.apache.org
Betreff: RE: Dynamic server management?
Hi Thomas, We currently don't have such a feature of adding and removing
servers dynamically, although we would like to, so
Austin, Please check:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-140
Thanks,
-Flavio
-Original Message-
From: Austin Shoemaker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 12:22 PM
To: zookeeper-user@hadoop.apache.org
Subject: Re: Leader election stalled
Ben,
24 matches
Mail list logo
