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
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
> Chubby's performance characteristics... and if it would be possible to
> a Big Table clone that had scalability characteristics of Big Table with
> ZooKeeper as the underlying coordinator?