that quote is a bit out of context. it was with respect to a proposed
in your scenario can you explain step 4)? what are you closing?
On 11/18/2010 07:16 AM, Gustavo Niemeyer wrote:
As some of you already know, we've been using ZooKeeper at Canonical
for a project we've been pushing (Ensemble, http://j.mp/dql6Fu).
We've already written down txzookeeper (http://j.mp/d3Zx7z), to
integrate the Python bindings with Twisted, and we're also in the
process of creating a Go binding for the C ZooKeeper library (to be
Yesterday, while working on the Go bindings, a test made me wonder
about what's the correct way to reestablish a session with ZooKeeper.
In another thread a couple of months ago, Ben mentioned:
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.
I also don't think it should delete ephemeral nodes. While performing
some tests, though, I noticed that something similar to this may
The following sequence was performed in the test:
1) Establish connection A to ZK
2) Create an ephemeral node with A
3) Establish connection B to ZK, reusing the session from A
4) Close connection A
5) The ephemeral node from (2) got deleted.
So, this made me wonder about what's the proper way to reestablish a
session in practice, due to partitioning. Imagine that the
reconnection which happened on (3) was an attempt from the client to
restore the communication with the ZK cluster when faced with
partitioning. Once the connection succeeded, the old resources from
connection A should be disposed, but how to do this without risking
killing the healthy connection on B (imagine that the network comes
back between (3) and (4)).
Anyone has thoughts on that?