curator-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jordan Zimmerman <>
Subject Re: Persistent locks
Date Tue, 14 Jan 2014 01:42:06 GMT
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.


From: Jozef Vilcek Jozef Vilcek
Date: January 13, 2014 at 7:24:06 AM
Subject:  Persistent locks  

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) ?

View raw message