[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-181?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13262716#comment-13262716
]
Matteo Merli commented on BOOKKEEPER-181:
-----------------------------------------
Yes, you're right, with the above scheme you can end with half-deleted ledgers.
I think it could be fixed by adding another step to the sequence. Although I
would not call this a _data loss_, since the client explicitly asked for
deletion, meaning the data is no longer relevant.
Anyway, the client must keep track of its own ledger somewhere, and it's its
responsibility to make sure the ledgers are deleted (and to retry when the
deleteLedger() fails). Otherwise, even with the current implemented solution,
there is a resource leak in the system, with unused dangling ledgers that stick
around forever.
> Scale hedwig
> ------------
>
> Key: BOOKKEEPER-181
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-181
> Project: Bookkeeper
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: bookkeeper-server, hedwig-server
> Reporter: Sijie Guo
> Assignee: Sijie Guo
> Fix For: 4.2.0
>
> Attachments: hedwigscale.pdf, hedwigscale.pdf
>
>
> Current implementation of Hedwig and BookKeeper is designed to scale to
> hundreds of thousands of topics, but now we are looking at scaling them to
> tens to hundreds of millions of topics, using a scalable key/value store such
> as HBase.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
