Hi Raghu, I'm moving this thread to the zookeeper-dev list. I think
this discussion is more appropriate to that list.
With respect to the implementation of haveDelivered, please check the
posts on jira, issue 275 (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-275
) for a scenario that makes it necessary, and let me know if it is
still not clear after you check it out or you simply don't agree.
About the queue of messages, it was our intention originally to have
all quorum communication going through the same channel (leader
election and broadcast), and we thought about using QuorumCnxManager
for that. We haven't had to time to make that change mainly because it
would be a major change it seems. So, we have a more general
implementation that queues messages to be delivered to other peers.
This is not supposed to be a problem, though, because it simply
implements a channel that eventually delivers messages.
-Flavio
On Mar 26, 2009, at 3:28 AM, rag...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hello,
I am a ZooKeeper newbie, so pardon me if I am repeating questions
that have been raised before.
I believe the implementation of QuorumCnxManager.haveDelivered() is
incorrect. If I understand correctly, queueSendMap contains a queue
of messages for each peer to which the local peer is trying to send
election messages. When FastLeaderElection notices a timeout while
polling for inbound messages, it checks to see if all the messages
have been delivered by calling this function. So shouldn't this
function actually check each queue in the hash map and return true
if all of them are empty? This method is rather returning true the
if just one of the queues is empty?
/**
* Check if all queues are empty, indicating that all messages
have been delivered.
*/
boolean haveDelivered() {
for (ArrayBlockingQueue<ByteBuffer> queue :
queueSendMap.values()) {
LOG.debug("Queue size: " + queue.size());
if (queue.size() == 0)
return true;
}
return false;
}
Also, could someone expain the reason behind maitaining a queue of
messages for each peer in queueSendMap? Why do we need a per peer
queue here? Since this is used during election, the local peer is
not sending more than one message at a time to the remote peer. So
the hash map needs to store just one message per remote peer?
-Raghu
