On Feb 6, 2013, at 7:10 AM, Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > so exposing api like LedgerHandle#isClosed() to verify a ledger is closed or > not, is it enough for your case? >
The advantage I see of doing this is that the application doesn't have to fetch and parse the metadata itself. I think it is a good idea. -Flavio > -Sijie > > > > On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Whitney Sorenson <wsoren...@hubspot.com> > wrote: > Sijie, > > The problem is I have many writers (all with their own ledgers.) They are > constantly closing and creating new ledgers. > > Then I have many readers which want to read the ledgers. How should the > readers know what the ledgers are that exist to be read - they want to read > ALL ledgers that are closed, essentially. > > Does this make sense? > > > On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Whitney, > > > On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Whitney Sorenson <wsoren...@hubspot.com> > wrote: > Thank you for responding. > > Forgive me if I'm missing something, but if I have a writer and separate > readers, why would I want to have to communicate ledger ids between them? > More specifically, we have a series of writers writing to a write-ahead log > and a separate set of readers that are consuming these ledgers to move them > into long term storage and send them to queues / workflows to be processed. > > I am just curious about the case you mentioned that you have a series of > writers writing to a write-ahead log. If the write-ahead log means a ledger, > I couldn't image how you implemented a series of writers writing to it, since > bookkeeper just allow one writer writing to a ledger. > > if the write-head log is formed by several ledgers, it means that you might > already have a mechanism to map the writer to the ledger, so when a writer > #openLedger, it means that the ledger would be closed. basically, the close > state could be distinguished by different calls : the ledger handle returned > by #createLedger is an opened ledger while the ledger handle returned by > #openLedger is a closed ledger. If you want to write entries, you had to > create a new ledger. Either the ledger is closed or the writer is crashed, > the ledger could not be written again. So I don't think you need to keep the > state is your end. If I don't understand your case, please let me know. > > This means I have to keep the state about which ledgers are available, and > which are closed, which seems to be a complete duplication of the state that > is already in BK. > > I'm not sure named ledgers are helpful in this situation, except that we > could keep less state (perhaps a sequential id.) > > On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello, Whitney: > > please check the replies inline. > > On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Whitney Sorenson <wsoren...@hubspot.com> > wrote: > Hey all, > > A couple questions about running BK stand-alone: > > 1) If I call openLedgerNoRecovery am I blocking writes or not? What are the > guarantees I lose - just ordering? Can I use this to essentially read / tail > an active ledger? > > open a ledger using openLedgerNoRecovery doesn't block any writes to it. And > you don't lose the ordering guarantee. You could use it to read/tail an > active ledger, but please keep in mind that you need to call > #readLastConfirmed to catch up to the latest confirmed entries added by the > writer. And the entries you could read from an openLedgerNoRecovery ledger, > is just between 0 and last confirmed. > > you could check: > http://zookeeper.apache.org/bookkeeper/docs/r4.2.0/apidocs/org/apache/bookkeeper/client/BookKeeper.html#asyncOpenLedgerNoRecovery(long, > org.apache.bookkeeper.client.BookKeeper.DigestType, byte[], > org.apache.bookkeeper.client.AsyncCallback.OpenCallback, java.lang.Object) > > > 2) How can I access BK's metadata so that I can determine a list of ledgers, > and which ledgers are closed/open? It doesn't appear in the client > documentation > (http://zookeeper.apache.org/bookkeeper/docs/r4.2.0/apidocs/org/apache/bookkeeper/client/) > Is this not an intended operation? Are clients supposed to track ledger ids > on their own (we are currently doing this but it seems suboptimal) > > > currently we don't expose the API for client. Is there any special case you > are considering? We'd happy to expose it if necessary. > > Since most of the cases are working in following styles: a *standby* writer > observes the *active* writer state, if the *active* writer failed, the > *standby* writer would take over the responsibility, closed the ledger > written by *active* writer, replayed the ledger and created a new ledger to > write new entries. For now, clients needs to track ledger ids on their end. > > There is one proposal working on providing *named* ledgers on top of > bookkeeper to ease user's experience tracking ledger ids. You could check : > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BOOKKEEPER-220 . And we are under > discussion on whether to provide ledger name internally in bookkeeper for > metadata access concerns. We'd like to hear your feedback on the usage of API > and make it better. > > > Thank you; > > -Whitney Sorenson > HubSpot > > > > > >
