[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-365?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13530686#comment-13530686
]
Sijie Guo commented on BOOKKEEPER-365:
--------------------------------------
{quote}
If this is the case, it sounds reasonable to me.
{quote}
Yes, as you described.
{quote}
If ack quorum size is 1, then we can't tolerate a single failure, consequently
the example is not fault tolerant by definition.
{quote}
Taking quorum size 1 just to ease explaining that it was a bad idea to replace
a bookie before writing entries for a recover procedure. I think we need to
avoid it using Ivan's proposal. This would be adressed in BOOKKEEPER-355. Ivan
already worked on it, I think.
> Ledger will never recover if one of the quorum bookie is down forever and
> others dont have entry
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: BOOKKEEPER-365
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-365
> Project: Bookkeeper
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 4.0.0, 4.1.0
> Reporter: Sijie Guo
> Assignee: Sijie Guo
> Fix For: 4.2.0
>
> Attachments: BOOKKEEPER-365.diff, BOOKKEEPER-365.diff
>
>
> As discussed in BOOKKEEPER-355, current fix to handle the below issue is not
> correct. Need to find out new solution
> If some bookies of a quorum gone forever, some bookies of this quorum are
> still alive but doesn't have that entry (NoSuchEntry or NoSuchLedger), then
> the ledger doesn't have any evidence to recovery/close it.
--
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
