jackrabbit-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bart van der Schans <b.vandersch...@onehippo.com>
Subject Re: Add more options to make Jackrabbit more failsafe and/or scale-out
Date Tue, 03 May 2011 10:40:11 GMT
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Christian Stocker
<christian.stocker@liip.ch> wrote:
> On 02.05.11 14:43, Bart van der Schans wrote:
>> I've played many times with the idea of creating some kind SlaveNode
>> next to the ClusterNode which only needs read access to the database
>> (slave). I don't think the local revision of the slave isn't much use
>> to the master so that could be kept on disk locally with the slave.
> AFAICT, the janitor needs to know, where all the cluster-instances are
> to safely delete everything it isn't needed anymore. That's why it needs
> to be stored in a central place.

I can imagine that since the slaves are read-only they don't have
anything to say about what is still needed or not and the janitor can
makes it's decision based on the revisions of the read-write cluster
members. I guess this could lead to temporal inconsistencies in the
slave when the janitor deleted something and the change got replicated
to the slave db but the slave node didn't sync with slave db yet, but
(at least for our use cases) that would be acceptable.


View raw message