[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-315?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13460610#comment-13460610
]
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