zookeeper-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From daidong <daidon...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: RE: Problems about Zab protocol
Date Thu, 21 Apr 2011 06:30:59 GMT
Hi, Alex

Thanks for your reply. :)

I knew ZAB has two modes, but things i do not quit understand focus on the broadcast mode.
In the ZAB paper, authors said ZAB is a simple version of two phases commit protocol because
we don't have abort actions in followers. I do not quit understand this.

In my opinion, an atomic broadcast protocol must guarantee all the non-faulty servers have
the same status eventually. So in the 2PC protocol, the coordinator must block until "all"
the servers reply "ok". If there is not any abort too, consider the situation that we have
a very slow follower F who processes messages slower than other followers. According TCP and
FIFO channel, We can say all the messages will be processed orderly in F, however, the messages
will assemble if coordinator continues to broadcasting. What happens if the receive buffer
in F is overflow?

Is there any mechanism i have not noticed to avoid this situation in ZAB?

About my second questions, I read the consistency guarantees section, thanks for your tips.
I still have a question, if zookeeper do not make sure that all the clients will see the latest
value, how the lock mechanism works? i checked the recipe example code in Zookeeper 3.3.3,
when a client try to get the write lock, it does not sync() before call getChildren(). If
other client has created a ephemeral node with the lowest number suffix, this client does
not get this information as getChildren() do not sync with leader. Is there any possibility
that two clients will think they both got the lock?

Thanks for any words. :)
-- 
daidong
Sent with Sparrow
On 2011年4月21日星期四 at 上午2:30, Alexander Shraer [via zookeeper-user] wrote: 
>  Hi, 
> 
> Regarding your first question - ZAB has two parts - the broadcast protocol you mention,

> which is executed by a leader, and the leader election protocol, which recovers from
a leader failure. 
> This is similar to the way other state-machine replication algorithms work, where you
have 
> a fast normal mode and a slower recovery mode (you don't need to execute both all the
time - only when the leader fails). 
> See Paxos state-machine replication for example (section 3): http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/lamport/pubs/pubs.html#paxos-simple
> 
> Regarding your second question - Zookeeper basically guarantees so called "sequential
consistency" semantics. 
> This guarantees that the real execution looks to clients like some sequential execution
in which 
> the operations of every client appear in the order they were submitted. It does not guarantee
that a read of one client 
> returns the latest value written by another client. This allows reads to be executed
locally. If you need to return the latest 
> state, you can use the sync() call which flushes the pending updates between the leader
and a follower. 
> See also the "consistency guarantees" section here: 
> http://hadoop.apache.org/zookeeper/docs/r3.3.1/zookeeperProgrammers.html
> 
> Alex 
> 
> > -----Original Message----- 
> > From: daidong [mailto:[hidden email]] 
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 2:38 AM 
> > To: [hidden email] 
> > Subject: Problems about Zab protocol 
> > 
> > Hi, everyone. 
> > 
> > Recently, i read the paper "a simple total ordered broadcast protocol" 
> > and 
> > there are some problems i can not figure out. Hope anyone can help 
> > me... :P 
> > 
> > The paper describes the Zab protocol as a 2 phase commit protocol when 
> > system is under broadcast mode. However some paper(Skeen 82, "A Quorum 
> > Based 
> > Commit Protocol") has mentioned if we want to extend an 2PC to adapt a 
> > quorum based commit protocol we must introduce a three phase commit 
> > protocol(In fact, i haven't quit understood this, :( ). However 
> > according 
> > Zab paper, this still can be done. Why and how to do this? 
> > 
> > Secondly, even Zookeeper can guarantee that status in different 
> > followers 
> > are consistent. However, this consistency only works among a quorum of 
> > followers that has acked the COMMIT. As the client can connect to any 
> > followers when perform reading action, so what happens if the client 
> > happens 
> > to connect with the follower that has not acked the COMMIT? I can not 
> > find 
> > the information in this paper... 
> > 
> > If i ask some naive question, Hope anybody can tell me where i can find 
> > the 
> > answer or some suggestions, thanks :) 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > View this message in context: http://zookeeper-
> > user.578899.n2.nabble.com/Problems-about-Zab-protocol- 
> > tp6290102p6290102.html 
> > Sent from the zookeeper-user mailing list archive at Nabble.com. 
> 
> 
> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below: http://zookeeper-user.578899.n2.nabble.com/Problems-about-Zab-protocol-tp6290102p6291775.html

>  To unsubscribe from Problems about Zab protocol, click here. 
> 
> 
> 



--
View this message in context: http://zookeeper-user.578899.n2.nabble.com/Problems-about-Zab-protocol-tp6290102p6293369.html
Sent from the zookeeper-user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message