I take your point about reliability, but I have no option other than finding
a multi-site solution.
Unfortunately, in my experience sites are much less reliable than individual
machines, and so in a way coping with site failure is more important than
individual machine failure. I imagine that the risk profile changes
according to the number of machines you have, however.
Thanks for the input
On 6 March 2010 18:29, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What you describe is relatively reasonable, even though Zookeeper is not
> normally distributed across multiple data centers with all members getting
> full votes. If you account for the limited throughput that this will
> on your applications that use ZK, then I think that this can work well.
> Probably, you would have local ZK clusters for higher transaction rate
> You should also consider very carefully whether having multiple data
> increases or decreases your overall reliability. Unless you design very
> carefully, this will normally substantially degrade reliability. Making
> sure that it increases reliability is a really big task that involves a lot
> of surprising (it was to me) considerations and considerable hardware and
> time investments.
> Good luck!
> On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 1:50 AM, Martin Waite <waite....@googlemail.com
> > Is this a viable approach, or am I taking Zookeeper out of its
> > domain and just asking for trouble ?
> Ted Dunning, CTO