activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>
Subject Re: Simpler Replicated LevelDB store?
Date Fri, 08 Nov 2013 15:22:21 GMT
Split brain is the hardest thing to deal with when working with
distributed master elections.  For example: you also need to control
how fast you can detect the network split scenario and make sure that
we don't elect a new master faster than the old master can be shutdown
when it's determined he's in the e minority part of the split.

On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Jaromir Hamala <jaromir.hamala@gmail.com> wrote:
> Cool! I was looking at it originally myself, but I'm not sure if I
> understand all consequences. Is there anything else to be aware of besides
> the split-brain scenario?
>
> Cheers,
> Jaromir
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Hiram Chirino <hiram@hiramchirino.com>wrote:
>
>> Ok sounds like a plan.  :)
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Jaromir Hamala <jaromir.hamala@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > There is nothing really fancy:
>> >
>> http://www.hazelcast.com/docs/3.0/manual/multi_html/ch12s02.html#NetworkPartitioning
>> > I believe there is no way how to specify a minimum quorum in order to
>> > obtain a distributed lock. This could lead to a situation where 2 servers
>> > will act as masters during the split-brain scenario, however I believe it
>> > should be possible to  implement this in ActiveMQ code - something like
>> >
>> > if (currentClusterSize < minimumSize) { dontEvenTryBeObtainAMasterLock..
>> }
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Hiram Chirino <hiram@hiramchirino.com
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> Would love to have multiple options.  My biggest question is how does
>> >> Hazelcast deal with network splits?
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Jaromir Hamala <
>> jaromir.hamala@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Hi guys,
>> >> >
>> >> > I was looking at the implementation of replicated LevelDB store. It
>> >> > currently requires Apache ZooKeeper. I was thinking how to simplify
it
>> >> and
>> >> > it seems me it should be possible to implement both electing master
>> and
>> >> > member discovery mechanisms by Hazelcast.
>> >> >
>> >> > What do you think about it? Hazelcast implements distributed locking,
>> >> it's
>> >> > very easy to use and has no external dependencies. I'm hoping to
>> simplify
>> >> > deployment and easy to use of ActiveMQ HA capabilities.
>> >> >
>> >> > Cheers,
>> >> > Jaromir
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > “Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but
>> when
>> >> > there is nothing left to take away.”
>> >> > Antoine de Saint Exupéry
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Hiram Chirino
>> >>
>> >> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>> >>
>> >> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>> >>
>> >> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>> >>
>> >> blog: Hiram Chirino's Bit Mojo
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > “Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when
>> > there is nothing left to take away.”
>> > Antoine de Saint Exupéry
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Hiram Chirino
>>
>> Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.
>>
>> hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com
>>
>> skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino
>>
>> blog: Hiram Chirino's Bit Mojo
>>
>
>
>
> --
> “Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when
> there is nothing left to take away.”
> Antoine de Saint Exupéry



-- 
Hiram Chirino

Engineering | Red Hat, Inc.

hchirino@redhat.com | fusesource.com | redhat.com

skype: hiramchirino | twitter: @hiramchirino

blog: Hiram Chirino's Bit Mojo

Mime
View raw message