A variant is to keep the tie-breaker in EC2. That can be made fairly secure, especially if all you are hosting is status information.
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Zsolt Beothy-Elo <[email protected]>wrote: > > Am 02.03.2011 um 18:56 schrieb Jesse Kempf: > > > Hi Zsolt, > > > > If the customer has a computer room at their headquarters, you could keep > two ZKs in each datacenter and a fifth ZK at their HQ. In that case you > could lose a datacenter and still have quorum. > > Running such an infrastructure service outside one of the data centers of > course violates almost every policy (security, backup,...) that is in place > at the customer. But we also had the idea :) And as Ritesh states computer > at headquarter would likely become the bottleneck. Connection between > centers is fast and reliable under almost all circumstances. > > Zsolt > > > > > Cheers, > > -Jesse > > > > On Mar 2, 2011, at 2:57 PM, Zsolt Beothy-Elo wrote: > > > >> Hi all, > >> in our product we currently implement to use ZooKeeper in conjunction > with CXF to dynamically manage available services and endpoints. > Unfortunately one of our customers is not very happy of having to run a > minimum of three ZooKeeper server instances to ensure fail over. The > customer has two data centers in different locations where data and > applications are replicated and some big-ip appliance in front of the data > centers. If one data center fails everything must still be operable. So he > would prefer to only have two instances one in each data center. I would be > grateful for some advise how to best cope with these contradicting > requirements. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Zsolt Beothy-Elo > > > >
