Hmm. Tying the session directly to the connection basically reverses my problem: I used to have crashed clients' ephemeral nodes visible for the duration of the session timeout, now I have partitioned clients' ephemeral nodes doubled for the duration of the session timeout. Of course, I expect partitions far less frequently than crashing/killed clients, so I suspect that is a cost I would willingly pay.
If the session is tied directly to the connection it would have some fairly big implications to the client-side zookeeper code eh? Instead of just seamlessly reconnecting upon zk server node failure you'd have to recreate your old session state completely. My own wrapping of the zkclient would handle this, but it's not completely trivial and increases the work on the zk servers when a failure occurs. C -----Original Message----- From: Patrick Hunt [mailto:ph...@apache.org] Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 3:47 PM To: email@example.com Cc: Benjamin Reed Subject: Re: closing session on socket close vs waiting for timeout Ben, in this case the session would be tied directly to the connection, we'd explicitly deny session re-establishment for this session type (so 4 would fail). Would that address your concern, others? Patrick On 09/01/2010 10:03 AM, Benjamin Reed wrote: > i'm a bit skeptical that this is going to work out properly. a server > may receive a socket reset even though the client is still alive: > > 1) client sends a request to a server > 2) client is partitioned from the server > 3) server starts trying to send response > 4) client reconnects to a different server > 5) partition heals > 6) server gets a reset from client > > at step 6 i don't think you want to delete the ephemeral nodes. > > ben > > On 08/31/2010 01:41 PM, Fournier, Camille F. [Tech] wrote: >> Yes that's right. Which network issues can cause the socket to close >> without the initiating process closing the socket? In my limited >> experience in this area network issues were more prone to leave dead >> sockets open rather than vice versa so I don't know what to look out for. >> >> Thanks, >> Camille >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Dave Wright [mailto:wrig...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 1:14 PM >> To: firstname.lastname@example.org >> Subject: Re: closing session on socket close vs waiting for timeout >> >> I think he's saying that if the socket closes because of a crash (i.e. >> not a >> normal zookeeper close request) then the session stays alive until the >> session timeout, which is of course true since ZK allows reconnection and >> resumption of the session in case of disconnect due to network issues. >> >> -Dave Wright >> >> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Ted Dunning<ted.dunn...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> That doesn't sound right to me. >>> >>> Is there a Zookeeper expert in the house? >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Fournier, Camille F. [Tech]< >>> camille.fourn...@gs.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I foolishly did not investigate the ZK code closely enough and it seems >>>> that closing the socket still waits for the session timeout to >>>> remove the >>>> session. >