Vanilla ZK servers will see security constraints as a network partition. Any servers that see a minority of the other servers will go tharn until the "partition" is healed. That isn't what you want (at all).
The ideas for federating ZK or allowing observers would likely do what you want. I can imagine that an observer would only care that it can see it's local peers and one of the observers would be elected to get updates (and thus would care about the central service). On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Todd Greenwood <to...@audiencescience.com>wrote: > Like most folks, our WAN is composed of various zones, some central > processing, some edge, some corp, and some in between (DMZs). In this > model, a given Zookeeper server will not have direct connectivity to all > of it's peers in the ensemble due to various security constraints. Is > this a problem? Are there special configurations for this model? > > Given 3 Zones > ------------- > > A <--> B > B <--> C > > A cannot see C, and vice versa. > B can see A and C. > > 1. Will zookeeper servers function properly even if a given set of > servers can only see some of the servers in the ensemble? For example, > the shared config lists all zk servers in A, B, and C, but A can only > see B, C can only see B, and B can see both A and C. > > 2. Will zookeeper servers flood the log with error messages if only a > subset of the ensemble members are visible? > > 3. Will the zk ensemble function properly if the config used by each > server only lists the servers in the ensemble that are visible? Suppose > that A has a config that only list servers in A and B, C a config for C > and B, and B has a config that lists servers in A, B, and C. Is this the > recommended approach? > > http://hadoop.apache.org/zookeeper/docs/r3.1.1/zookeeperAdmin.html > -- Ted Dunning, CTO DeepDyve