Flavio & Ted, thank you for your comments. So it sounds like the only way to currently deploy to the WAN is to deploy ZK Servers to the central DC and open up client connections to these ZK servers from the edge nodes. True?
In the future, once the Observers feature is implemented, then we should be able to deploy zk servers to both the DC and to the pods...with all the goodness that Flavio mentions below. Flavio - do you have a doc that describes exactly what happens in the transaction of a write operation? For instance, I'd like to know at exactly what stage a write has been commited to the ensemble, and not just the zk server the client is connected to. I figure it must be something like: clientA.write(path, value) -> serverA writes to memory -> serverA writes to transacted disk every n/seconds or m/bytes -> serverA sends write to Leader -> Leader stamps with transaction id -> Leader responds to ensemble with update + transaction id -Todd -----Original Message----- From: Flavio Junqueira [mailto:f...@yahoo-inc.com] Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 4:50 PM To: email@example.com Subject: Re: Zookeeper WAN Configuration Just a few quick observations: On Jul 24, 2009, at 4:40 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: > On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Todd Greenwood > <to...@audiencescience.com>wrote: > >> Could you explain the idea behind the Observers feature, what this >> concept is supposed to address, and how it applies to the WAN >> configuration problem in particular? >> > > Not really. I am just echoing comments on observers from them that > know. > Without observers, increasing the number of servers in an ensemble enables higher read throughput, but causes write throughput to drop because the number of votes to order each write operation increases. Essentially, observers are zookeeper servers that don't vote when ordering updates to the zookeeper state. Adding observers enables higher read throughput affecting minimally write throughput (leader still has to send commits to everyone, at least in the version we have been working on). > >> """ >> 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). >> """ >> This certainly sounds like exactly what I want...Was this >> introduced in >> 3.2 in full, or only partially? >> > > I don't think it is even in trunk yet. Look on Jira or at the > recent logs > of this mailing list. It is not on trunk yet. -Flavio