Hi Vishal, This idea (2.) had been kicked around intially by Flavio. I think he¹ll probably chip in on the discussion. I am just curious on the whats the idea behind your proposal? Is this to provide some kind of failure gaurantees between a 2 node and 3 node cluster?
Thanks mahadev On 10/25/10 1:05 PM, "Vishal K" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi All, > > I am thinking about the choices one would have to support multiple 2-node > clusters. Assume that for some reason one needs to support multiple 2-node > clusters. > This would mean they will have to figure out a way to run a third instance > of ZK server for each cluster somewhere to ensure that a ZK cluster is > available after a failure. > > This works well if we have to run one or two 2-node clusters. However, what > if we have to run many 2-node clusters? > > I have following options: > 1. Find m machines to run the third instance of each cluster. Run n/m > instances of ZK on each machine. > 2. Modify ZooKeeper server to participate in multiple clusters. This will > allow us to run y instances of third node where each instance will be part > of n/y clusters. > 3. Run the third instance of ZK server required for the ith cluster on one > of the server on (i+1)%n cluster. Essentially, distribute the third instance > across the other clusters. > > The pros and cons of each approach are fairly obvious. While I prefer the > third approach, I would like to check what everyone thinks about the second > approach. > > Thanks. > -Vishal >
