HI Maarteen, Can you elaborate on your use case of ZooKeeper? We currently don't have any symlinks feature in zookeeper. The only way to do it for you would be a client side hash/lookup table that buckets data to different zookeeper servers.
Or you could also store this hash/lookup table in one of the zookeeper clusters. This lookup table can then be cached on the client side after reading it once from zookeeper servers. Thanks mahadev On 7/24/10 2:39 PM, "Maarten Koopmans" <maar...@vrijheid.net> wrote: > Yes, I thought about Cassandra or Voldemort, but I need ZKs guarantees > as it will provide the file system hierarchy to a flat object store so I > need locking primitives and consistency. Doing that on top of Voldemort > will give me a scalable version of ZK, but just slower. Might as well > find a way to scale across ZK clusters. > > Also, I want to be able to add clusters as the number of nodes grows. > Note that the #nodes will grow with the #users of the system, so the > clusters can grow sequentially, hence the symlink idea. > > --Maarten > > On 07/24/2010 11:12 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: >> Depending on your application, it might be good to simply hash the node name >> to decide which ZK cluster to put it on. >> >> Also, a scalable key value store like Voldemort or Cassandra might be more >> appropriate for your application. Unless you need the hard-core guarantees >> of ZK, they can be better for large scale storage. >> >> On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 7:30 AM, Maarten Koopmans<maar...@vrijheid.net>wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I have a number of nodes that will grow larger than one cluster can hold, >>> so I am looking for a way to efficiently stack clusters. One way is to have >>> a zookeeper node "symlink" to another cluster. >>> >>> Has anybody ever done that and some tips, or alternative approaches? >>> Currently I use Scala, and traverse zookeeper trees by proper tail >>> recursion, so adapting the tail recursion to process "symlinks" would be my >>> approach. >>> >>> Bst, Maarten >>> >> >