This is a little more complex than I'd initially given consideration to. The
biggest point being the question about what would happen to an ephemeral
parent node when the session that owns it exits.
What I'd suggest might work:
- when the session that created the parent ends, ownership of the parent
could either be transferred to the owner/session that created the oldest
child, or instead ownership could be transferred to some kind of nominal
system session (which would delete the parent once the last ephemeral child
- when someone tries to create a persistent child of an ephemeral node, they
simply get back an appropriate error code
On 22 March 2010 16:44, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
> Dominic Williams wrote:
>> 1/ If a node crashes or something else goes wrong, you leave behind
>> persistent nodes. Over time these will grow and grow, rather like the old
>> tmp folders used to fill with files under Windows
> That's true. One either needs to use ephemerals or use persistent and have
> a "garbage collector" (implicit or explicit gc). In most cases it's
> preferable to use the ephemeral.
> 2/ Persistent nodes = nasty scalability *bottleneck* because you're
>> having to write to disk somewhere.
> This is not actually how ZK works. All znodes regardless of
> persistent/ephemeral are written to disk persistently. Ephemeral nodes are
> tied to the session that created them. As long as the session is alive the
> ephemeral node is alive. Sessions themselves are persistently/reliably
> stored by the ZK cluster. This allows the shutdown of the entire cluster and
> restart it, all sessions/ephemerals will be maintained. Sessions can move
> from server to server (if say network connectivity to server A fails, or
> server A itself fails then the client will move to server B). The session
> and all ephemerals are maintained (well, as long as the client moves withing
> the expiration timeout value).
> To avoid this I'm actually thinking of writing locking system where you
>> out the existing chain not by enumerating sequential children, but by
>> looking at the contents of each temporary lock node to see what it is
>> waiting on. But... that's quite horrible. Was wondering whether there is
>> some technical reason why you ephemeral nodes can't have children??
> There are a few cases to think about.
> 1) obviously ephemeral nodes can't have persistent children, this just
> doesn't make sense
> 2) ephemeral nodes have an owner - the session that created them. so it
> would also not make sense (in my mind at least) to have an ephemeral /foo
> with another ephemeral /foo/bar with a different owner.
> 3) so you are left with "ephemerals can be a child of an ephemeral with the
> same owner".
> 4) there are also issues of order. in particular what is the "deletion
> order" depth first or breadth first, etc...
> I believe the answer so far has been "we don't do this because it's fairly
> complicated and we haven't seen any use cases that require it." In the cases
> I've seen so far there was either a misunderstanding of how zk worked, or a
> simpler way available.
> Does that make sense? Thoughts?