zookeeper-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "ASF GitHub Bot (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (ZOOKEEPER-261) Reinitialized servers should not participate in leader election
Date Thu, 12 Jan 2017 01:27:16 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-261?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15819802#comment-15819802

ASF GitHub Bot commented on ZOOKEEPER-261:

Github user eribeiro commented on a diff in the pull request:

    --- Diff: bin/zkServer-initialize.sh ---
    @@ -113,6 +113,8 @@ initialize() {
             echo "No myid provided, be sure to specify it in $ZOO_DATADIR/myid if using non-standalone"
    +    date > "$ZOO_DATADIR/initialize"
    --- End diff --
    Nit: If the sole purpose of this file is to act as a marker, in spite of its content,
 then a 
    ```touch $ZOO_DATADIR/initialize``` 
    would be enough, wouldn't it?
    Of course, `date` is fine as well, no problem.

> Reinitialized servers should not participate in leader election
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: ZOOKEEPER-261
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-261
>             Project: ZooKeeper
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: leaderElection, quorum
>            Reporter: Benjamin Reed
> A server that has lost its data should not participate in leader election until it has
resynced with a leader. Our leader election algorithm and NEW_LEADER commit assumes that the
followers voting on a leader have not lost any of their data. We should have a flag in the
data directory saying whether or not the data is preserved so that the the flag will be cleared
if the data is ever cleared.
> Here is the problematic scenario: you have have ensemble of machines A, B, and C. C is
down. the last transaction seen by C is z. a transaction, z+1, is committed on A and B. Now
there is a power outage. B's data gets reinitialized. when power comes back up, B and C comes
up, but A does not. C will be elected leader and transaction z+1 is lost. (note, this can
happen even if all three machines are up and C just responds quickly. in that case C would
tell A to truncate z+1 from its log.) in theory we haven't violated our 2f+1 guarantee, since
A is failed and B still hasn't recovered from failure, but it would be nice if when we don't
have quorum that system stops working rather than works incorrectly if we lose quorum.

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

View raw message