Hi Prashant,
Just one more thing. It would be great if you could update the powered by
page at:
http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/ZooKeeper/PoweredBy
With your usage model as well once you start using ZooKeeper.
Thanks
mahadev
On 4/14/10 10:38 AM, "Patrick Hunt" wrote:
>
> On 04/14/2010 10:
On 04/14/2010 10:09 AM, Mekaraj, Prashant wrote:
We did test this and it seems to work fine, but ymmv depending on the
load balancer product I suppose.
Yes, that's def true. Please highlight this in your results writeup. If
you can provide the name, config, etc.. of the lb you used that would
On 04/14/2010 09:33 AM, Mekaraj, Prashant wrote:
Many thanks for the quick reply.
1) unnecessary -- clients already randomize their connect string
to balance the sessions across servers
The problems we are trying to solve are 1. updating the ensemble to
add new servers implies finding an upd
Two main issues I can think of:
1) unnecessary -- clients already randomize their connect string to
balance the sessions across servers
2) unless you turn on some sort of session tracking in the ballancer
client's won't be able to use the service. ZK sessions use long lived
TCP connections to
Hi Seb, I was wondering how you're thinking about performing session
management interposing a load balancer between clients and zookeeper
servers. I'm probably missing some important piece of your design.
Thanks,
-Flavio
On Apr 14, 2010, at 3:48 PM, Toader, Sebastian wrote:
Hi ZooKeeper D
Hi ZooKeeper Dev Team,
We are thinking of putting our ZooKeeper server behind load balancer. The
client applications would connect to assemble through the load balancer.
Can you let us know if there are any drawbacks in putting the assemble behind a
load balancer?
Thank you,
Seb
-
