Guaranteeing that eventually everyone in the write quorum will receive it (a) implies that we can't complete the operation until all of them ack, although we might end up notifying the client before the operation completes. Is it what you'd like to have?
-Flavio On Dec 13, 2012, at 7:47 AM, Sijie Guo wrote: > >> If you avoid replacing it though, then you are vulnerable to a another > >> bookie in the ensemble slowing down. > > thinking a bit more about it. it is OK for me. > > >> Currently we guarentee b) but a) wouldn't be hard to do. We just have > to avoid removing PendingAddOps until the ackSet is complete. > > Could we add some comments about that, to clarify the situation? > > > > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 2:11 AM, Ivan Kelly <[email protected]> wrote: > Currently we guarentee b) but a) wouldn't be hard to do. We just have > to avoid removing PendingAddOps until the ackSet is complete. > > > > > In general, I think avoiding replacing the slow bookie doesn't volatile the > > contract provided by BookKeeper. > If you avoid replacing it though, then you are vulnerable to a another > bookie in the ensemble slowing down. > > -Ivan >
