Chubby and Zookeeper have very different ways at getting to similar purposes. Chubby is a locking service, while zookeeper is all about avoiding locks. Zookeeper is better described as a coordination service.
Regarding performance, I am pretty sure that Zookeeper could keep up with some pretty enormous clusters quite easily. I would expect that the performance of the underlying file system is more like to be the critical performance issue. On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:00 AM, David Pollak <feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com>wrote: > > I understand that Google uses Chubby (a ZooKeeper clone... or vice versa > :-) > ) as the coordination mechanism for Big Table. Do you have any insight > into > Chubby's performance characteristics... and if it would be possible to > build > a Big Table clone that had scalability characteristics of Big Table with > ZooKeeper as the underlying coordinator? > >