[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-315?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13460608#comment-13460608
 ] 

Uma Maheswara Rao G commented on BOOKKEEPER-315:
------------------------------------------------

Thanks a lot Ivan, for the comments.

one clarification: are you suggesting something like below?

{code}
private void replicateBatch(LedgerHandle lh, LedgerFragment lf,
            InetSocketAddress targetBookieAddress) throws InterruptedException {
        final SyncCounter syncCounter = new SyncCounter();
        ResultCallBack resultCallBack = new ResultCallBack(syncCounter);
        syncCounter.inc();
        replicate(lh, lf, resultCallBack, targetBookieAddress);
        syncCounter.block(0);
    }
{code}

replicateBatch, replicate are like, one will be sync call and other is async?

or you are suggesting that replicateBatch itself can be async?

Could you please clarify on this?

Thanks,
Uma
                
> Ledger entries should be replicated sequentially instead of parallel.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: BOOKKEEPER-315
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-315
>             Project: Bookkeeper
>          Issue Type: Sub-task
>          Components: bookkeeper-auto-recovery, bookkeeper-client
>    Affects Versions: 4.2.0
>            Reporter: Uma Maheswara Rao G
>            Assignee: Uma Maheswara Rao G
>         Attachments: BOOKKEEPER-315.patch, BOOKKEEPER-315.patch
>
>
> Currently BookKeeperAdmin will copy the entries parallel.
> This may create more load on the servers. To avoid that, we can refactor the 
> BKAdmin code to copy the entries sequential.

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

Reply via email to