As I pointed out in my response, you should distinguish hard and soft
failures. If one machine fails even catastrophically, you can provide a new
machine to replace it, thus converting a hard failure into a soft one.
The conclusion is the same. Three machines is vastly better than one or
two.
O
Suppose a machine has probability of soft-failure p_1 and catastrophic p_2
<< p_1. Assume that two machines have independent failure modes.
Probably of soft failure of a one machine cluster = p_1, two machine cluster
= probability of soft failure of 1 or 2 machines + probability of one
machine ha
Using two machines running ZK will actually decrease your reliability
>> compared to using a single machine. Consider using one machine or three.
>>
>
> ?
>
> Not meaning to pull the thread off-topic, but I don't understand why this
> should be the case. Can you elaborate?
>
>
With majority-based
On 03/31/2010 02:10 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
To add to Patrick's comments, I hope you mean that you are connecting to ZK
from a cluster of two machines rather than having only two machines that
form a ZK cluster.
Using two machines running ZK will actually decrease your reliability
compared to usi
To add to Patrick's comments, I hope you mean that you are connecting to ZK
from a cluster of two machines rather than having only two machines that
form a ZK cluster.
Using two machines running ZK will actually decrease your reliability
compared to using a single machine. Consider using one mach
Hi Li, when you say 17 threads reading a znode, do you mean that you
have 17 threads each creating a session and using that session to read a
znode? If so it's probably due to this:
http://hadoop.apache.org/zookeeper/docs/current/zookeeperAdmin.html#sc_advancedConfiguration
see the parameter "
