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

> 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?

Reply via email to