Follow up question: does anyone have a production cluster that handles a similar sustained rate of changes?
-----Original Message----- From: Benjamin Reed [mailto:br...@yahoo-inc.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 2:53 PM To: email@example.com Subject: Re: zxid integer overflow we should put in a test for that. it is certainly a plausible scenario. in theory it will just flow into the next epoch and everything will be fine, but we should try it and see. ben On 10/19/2010 11:33 AM, Sandy Pratt wrote: > Just as a thought experiment, I was pondering the following: > > ZK stamps each change to its managed state with a zxid > (http://hadoop.apache.org/zookeeper/docs/r3.2.1/zookeeperInternals.html). > That ID consists of a 64 bit number in which the upper 32 bits are the epoch, > which changes when the leader does, and the bottom 32 bits are a counter, > which is incremented by the leader with every change. If 1000 changes are > made to ZK state each second (which is 1/20th of the peak rate advertised), > then the counter portion will roll over in 2^32 / (86400 * 1000) = 49 days. > > Now, assuming that my math is correct, is this an actual concern? For > example, if I'm using ZK to provide locking for a key value store that > handles transactions at about that rate, am I setting myself up for failure? > > Thanks, > > Sandy