Either a) or b) is OK for me. I just think we need to clarify something for 4.2.0 release, right?
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 12:37 AM, Flavio Junqueira <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 >> > > >
