On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Jason Rutherglen < [email protected]> wrote:
> > My gut is that this would be a maintenance headache > > What specifically do you think would cause a problem? > Tracking versions for one. Everybody has a different favorite. That is the nice thing about standards. There are so many to choose from. Besides, how do you handle people who want the snapshots and higher performance that you get from maprfs? > Internal management of ZK is already an option (and I don't recommend that > > either, for different reasons) > > What are the reasons? > The basic issue is that it is nice to use ZK to determine which services are up and to avoid race conditions as services come up. If some of the services are actually running ZK, how do you distinguish that process getting hung from not being up? Also, ZK is very reliable and that is the primary virtue we are trying to capitalize on when we use it as a coordination service. Given that, how is it a good thing to incorporate it into software that is inevitably less stable? Isn't that tantamount to giving ZK's primary virtue?
