According to your explanation, "*ZAB makes the guarantee that a proposal
which has been logged by
a quorum of followers will eventually be committed*" , however, the source
code of Zookeeper, the FastLeaderElection.java file, shows that, in the
election, the candidates only provide their zxid in the votes, the one with
the max zxid would win the election. I mean, it seems that no check has been
made to make sure whether the latest proposal has been logged by a quorum of
In this situation, the zookeeper would deliver a proposal, which is known as
a failed one by the client. Imagine this scenario, a zookeeper cluster with
5 servers, Leader only receives 1 ack for proposal A, after a timeout, the
client is told that the proposal failed. At this time, all servers restart
due to a power failure. The server have the log of proposal A would be the
leader, however, the client is told the proposal A failed.
Do I misunderstand this?
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Henry Robinson <he...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> Qing -
> That part of the documentation is slightly confusing. The elected leader
> must have the highest zxid that has been written to disk by a quorum of
> followers. ZAB makes the guarantee that a proposal which has been logged by
> a quorum of followers will eventually be committed. Conversely, any
> proposals that *don't* get logged by a quorum before the leader sending
> dies will not be committed. One of the ZAB papers covers both these
> situations - making sure proposals are committed or skipped at the right
> So you get the neat property that leader election can be live in exactly
> case where the ZK cluster is live. If a quorum of peers aren't available to
> elect the leader, the resulting cluster won't be live anyhow, so it's ok
> leader election to fail.
> FLP impossibility isn't actually strictly relevant for ZAB, because FLP
> requires that message reordering is possible (see all the stuff in that
> paper about non-deterministically drawing messages from a potentially
> deliverable set). TCP FIFO channels don't reorder, so provide the extra
> signalling that ZAB requires.
> 2010/1/26 Qing Yan <qing...@gmail.com>
> > Hi,
> > I have question about how zookeeper *remembers* a commit operation.
> > According to
> > <quote>
> > The leader will issue a COMMIT to all followers as soon as a quorum of
> > followers have ACKed a message. Since messages are ACKed in order,
> > will be sent by the leader as received by the followers in order.
> > COMMITs are processed in order. Followers deliver a proposals message
> > that proposal is committed.
> > </quote>
> > My question is will leader wait for COMMIT to be processed by quorum
> > of followers before consider
> > COMMIT to be success? From the documentation it seems that leader handles
> > COMMIT asynchronously and
> > don't expect confirmation from followers. In the extreme case, what
> > if leader issue a COMMIT
> > to all followers and crash immediately before the COMMIT message can go
> > of the network. How the system
> > remembers the COMMIT ever happens?
> > Actually this is related to the leader election process:
> > <quote>
> > ZooKeeper messaging doesn't care about the exact method of electing a
> > leader
> > has long as the following holds:
> > -
> > The leader has seen the highest zxid of all the followers.
> > -
> > A quorum of servers have committed to following the leader.
> > Of these two requirements only the first, the highest zxid amoung the
> > followers needs to hold for correct operation.
> > </quote>
> > Is there a liveness issue try to find "The leader has seen the highest
> > of all the followers"? What if some of the followers (which happens to
> > holding the highest zxid) cannot be contacted(FLP impossible result?)
> > It will be more striaghtforward if COMMIT requires confirmation from a
> > quorum of the followers. But I guess things get
> > optimized according to Zab's FIFO nature...just want to hear some
> > clarification about it.
> > Thanks alot!
Made in Zhejiang University