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?
On 10/25/10 1:05 PM, "Vishal K" <vishalm...@gmail.com> 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
> 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