[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-646?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13048681#comment-13048681
]
Alexander Shraer commented on ZOOKEEPER-646:
--------------------------------------------
> to maintain semantics you have to dig into the core functionality
Not really - every leader is in charge of local operations as usual, and an
observer is in charge of remote operations.
Obviously both proposals require some changes, but I actually think this one
requires less changes, and can perhaps reuse development done for ZOOKEEPER-892.
> remote failures causes pipeline stalls
Only if you provide the prefix-failure property, and then a failure of a remote
op would only stall operations of the client who requested this property (since
remote ops don't go through normal local pipeline they don't stall it). But if
you don't need ordering across partitions than you probably also don't need
this property...
> and we have found that in practice when you do such partitioning you don't
> need ordering guarantees across partitions.
this probably depends on the application, but if you don't need ordering among
partitions I would just run multiple ZK instances.
> Namespace partitioning in ZK
> -----------------------------
>
> Key: ZOOKEEPER-646
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-646
> Project: ZooKeeper
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Reporter: Kay Kay
>
> Tracking JIRA for namespace partitioning in ZK
> From the mailing list (- courtesy: Mahadev / Flavio ) , discussion during Jan
> 2010 -
> "Hi, Mahadev said it all, we have been thinking about it for a while, but
> >> haven't had time to work on it. I also don't think we have a jira open for
> >> it; at least I couldn't find one. But, we did put together some comments:
> >>
> >> http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/ZooKeeper/PartitionedZookeeper
> >>
> >> One of the main issues we have observed there is that partitioning will
> >> force us to change our consistency guarantees, which is far from ideal.
> >> However, some users seem to be ok with it, but I'm not sure we have
> >> agreement.
> >>
> >> In any case, please feel free to contribute or simply express your
> >> interests so that we can take them into account.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> -Flavio
> >>
> >>
> >> On Jan 15, 2010, at 12:49 AM, Mahadev Konar wrote:
> >>
> > >>> Hi kay,
> > >>> the namespace partitioning in zookeeper has been on a back burner for a
> > >>> long time. There isnt any jira open on it. There had been some
> > >>> discussions
> > >>> on this but no real work. Flavio/Ben have had this on there minds for a
> > >>> while but no real work/proposal is out yet.
> > >>>
> > >>> May I know is this something you are looking for in production?
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks
> > >>> mahadev
> "
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
