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

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.


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

Reply via email to