curator-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jordan Zimmerman <>
Subject Re: How to obtain stable leader election over unstable ZK connections
Date Thu, 20 Aug 2015 14:53:37 GMT
Maybe I'm confused, but I thought that's what ConnectionState SUSPENDED vs. 
LOST was all about? 
It’s a big source of confusion with Curator. LOST does _not_ mean the session was lost.
It means Curator has given up after retries, etc. Because Curator re-creates ZK handles internally
the notion of a “session” is more complicated than using raw ZooKeeper.


On August 20, 2015 at 9:50:56 AM, Scott Blum ( wrote:

Maybe I'm confused, but I thought that's what ConnectionState SUSPENDED vs.  
LOST was all about?  

Maybe the recipes just need to be tweaked a bit?  

I always assumed emphemeral nodes would be gone on LOST but not gone if you  
get a SUSPENDED followed by RECONNECTED.  

The one question I've always wondered is what happens to Watchers on  
SUSPENDED, do they all need to be re-applied, or will they still fire later  
as long as you don't get LOST?  

On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <> wrote:  

> I wonder if we can add error handling policies to Curator. Currently, the  
> policy of all recipes is hard-coded to treat SUSPENDED as a type of lost  
> session. We could change this to be injected like the retry policy. To  
> solve this particular issue we’d also need to introduce a SESSION_LOST  
> state of some type. This is complicated as Curator re-creates connections  
> internally.  
> Thoughts?  
> -Jordan  
> On August 20, 2015 at 2:10:52 AM, Dong Lei ( wrote:  
> Hi curator-devs:  
> We use Spark in standalone mode in which Spark leverage curator to manage  
> ZK connections and elect leader. Our Zookeeper may be not very stable and  
> we get "session suspended and reconnected" sometimes. The problem is that  
> this kind of disassociated and reconnected triggers leader election quite  
> often. And Spark's reaction to leadership switching can be very costly.  
> So I'm thinking about whether it's possible to tolerate such failure cases  
> if we can reconnect soon and the session is actually kept after the  
> reconnection?  
> Or does such a requirement makes sense to you?  
> Any advice will be appreciated.  
> Thanks  
> Dong Lei  

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message