curator-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jozef Vilcek <>
Subject Re: Persistent locks
Date Wed, 15 Jan 2014 11:06:13 GMT
Yes. I was digging a bit in curator code and thinking about how can I
implement this. If I would be able to somehow intercept creation of lock
nodes, I could build GC/heartbeat logic around the lock by "installing"
appropriate hooks.

One idea is that lock would accept a kind of LockNodeFactory, which would
be responsible for creating actual zookeeper nodes.
LockInternals.attemptLock() would delegate construction to the factory.
There, in my own factory, I could add posibility to listen to created lock
nodes and apply GC/heartbeat logic.

As you suggested, same could be done if node creation would be moved to the
LockInternalsDriver and made public/reusable. I like this even better. It
could be tricky how to reuse e.g. read-write lock, but it would not be so
painful to "re-implement" only that part of curator code on my end.


On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Jordan Zimmerman <> wrote:

> You might be able to re-use the code in the LockInternals class. It could
> easily be modified to do what you want via the LockInternalsDriver. Of
> course it would need to be made public. The gc/heartbeat stuff would have
> to be coded fresh, though.
> -Jordan
> ------------------------------
> From: Jozef Vilcek Jozef Vilcek <>
> Reply: Jozef Vilcek
> Date: January 14, 2014 at 12:18:15 AM
> To: Jordan Zimmerman
> Subject:  Re: Persistent locks
> Yes, you are correct. I tried to sketch this in my post. There will be
> possibility to create persistent lock, which will cause deadlock if holder
> crashes and one with possibility to to be gc collected after some time if
> holder crashes. The mechanism for this has to be implemented.
> Off course that I use "classical" ephemeral locks where possible. But I
> have few cases where it is not feasible.
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:42 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <
>> wrote:
>>  How will you avoid dead locks? You’ll need to write some kind of
>> heartbeat/gc mechanism to the lock. Otherwise I don’t see how it works if
>> the lock holder crashes.
>>  -JZ
>>  ------------------------------
>> From: Jozef Vilcek Jozef Vilcek <>
>> Reply:
>> Date: January 13, 2014 at 7:24:06 AM
>> To:
>> Subject:  Persistent locks
>>   Hi
>> I have a question about curator locks. I see that locks are implemented
>> via znode type EPHEMERAL_SEQUENTIAL. I am thinking about having an
>> implementation via PERSISTENT_SEQUENTIAL.
>> Main reason for this are processes with critical sections, where we can
>> not afford to loose a lock due to session expiration. In such case, others
>> might acquire a lock and kick in while the previous process is still
>> running but e.g. experiencing connection issues. To kill this temporally
>> detached process in favor of others would be too costly.
>> My thoughts are to have:
>> * Persistent lock - if something go south and client code does not
>> release lock, it will stay there until removed by manual or some other
>> intervention
>> * Persistent ephemeral lock - this would be ephemeral implemented by
>> persistent lock. For not so much critical stuff but e.g. for unstable
>> environments. This would install kind of refresh hook on a created lock
>> node. Other clients waiting to acquire lock could garbage collect locks
>> which does not received refresh for reasonable long time (scaling beyond
>> session timeouts).
>> What I would like to know:
>> * any wisdom, if this does make sense or if there is a better way out
>> there
>> * support from curator ... There is a lot of good code in curator I would
>> have to copy to make this work. I want to avoid this. Would it be possible
>> of provide either path for making locks core extensible/reusable (or to
>> contribute implementation of locks if considered worth for framework) ?
>> Best,
>> Jozo

View raw message