Ted, thank you very much for your reply. I think A will exit and so ZK can
help ..
Not sure if any further link can help on how to program for such scenario...
:-)
2010/1/20 Ted Dunning
> yes.
>
> But there is some danger that A will maintain a connection to ZK and thus
> retain the master sta
Hello,
Anyone familer with Paxos protocol here?
I was doing some comparision of ZAB vs Paxos... first of all, ZAB's FIFO
based protocol is really cool!
http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/ZooKeeper/PaxosRun mentioned the
inconsistency case for Paxos("the state change B depends upon A, but A was
hi Qing,
i'm glad you like the page and Zab.
yes, we are very familiar with Paxos. that page is meant to show a
weakness of Paxos and a design point for Zab. it is not to say Paxos is
not useful. Paxos is used in the real world in production systems.
sometimes there are not order dependencies
Take a look here at the recipes:
http://hadoop.apache.org/zookeeper/docs/r3.0.0/recipes.html
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:15 AM, xeoshow wrote:
> Ted, thank you very much for your reply. I think A will exit and so ZK can
> help ..
>
> Not sure if any further link can help on how to program for su
Qing -
Also, as you pointed out, ZAB requires this FIFO property of the
point-to-point links. Paxos copes with more adversarial networks which allow
reordering and missed messages. It's easy to alter Paxos so as not to
'publish' the results of consensus rounds where there are gaps in the
previous
Yeah, actually I have no doubts about Paxos protocol itself but rather the
state machine implementation part
(as described in Paxos made simple,section 3) where there could be multiple
Paxos instances.
shouldn't the Paxos instance execution be serialized in order to make the
state machine abstracti
