zookeeper-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thawan Kooburat <tha...@fb.com>
Subject Re: Maximum size of a snapshot
Date Wed, 17 Jul 2013 03:40:36 GMT
Client will get session expire event only when a server explicitly tells
the client. So any established sessions will remain in a disconnected
state during the period

So my comment about the need for longer session timeout might be
incorrect. While the quorum is down during leader election, session won't
expire during this period. When the quorum comes back, the client have to
reconnect within session timeout in order to resume the session.  However,
client won't be able to issue any read/write request or create a new
session while the quorum is down.

However, some application may need a stronger consistency guarantee. They
will have a special logic to abort the client if it was disconnected for
an extended period. This is because the client won't be able to tell if
the quorum is down or there is a network partition between the client and
the quorum. 


-- 
Thawan Kooburat





On 7/16/13 6:46 PM, "kishore g" <g.kishore@gmail.com> wrote:

>Thanks Thawan. Another question to follow up, so lets say client c1 is
>connected to leader and leader fails. Now c1 is trying to connect to
>another zk server but all servers are busy loading snapshot and can take a
>minute or two. According to Flavio zk servers dont accept any request
>while
>synchronization, but most clients dont keep that high connection timeout.
>So does this mean clients will timeout on connection?. Is my understanding
>correct or zk servers will accept connection requests but reject
>read/write
>requests.
>
>thanks,
>Kishore G
>
>
>On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Thawan Kooburat <thawan@fb.com> wrote:
>
>> There is a plan to work on this optimization ZOOKEEPER-1674.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thawan Kooburat
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/16/13 1:37 PM, "kishore g" <g.kishore@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >All servers in the quorum reading the snapshot from disk as part of the
>> >synchronization phase. From Thawan's email it looks like when ever
>>there
>> >is
>> >a leader election, all zk servers read the snapshot from disk. I am not
>> >sure why all servers should reload the snapshot from disk as this
>> >increases
>> >unavailability time.
>> >
>> >
>> >On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Flavio Junqueira
>> ><fpjunqueira@yahoo.com>wrote:
>> >
>> >> The synchronization phase is part of the protocol and we use it to
>> >> guarantee that we expose a consistent view of the state. During the
>> >> synchronization phase, servers do not accept requests.
>> >>
>> >> Which behavior are you proposing we change, Kishore?
>> >>
>> >> -Flavio
>> >>
>> >> On Jul 16, 2013, at 7:04 PM, kishore g <g.kishore@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Thanks for clarification Flavio. Does this mean during the leader
>> >> election,
>> >> > both reads and writes are not supported?. Do we start a separate
>> >> > thread/jira of changing this behavior?.
>> >> >
>> >> > thanks,
>> >> > Kishore G
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Flavio Junqueira
>> >><fpjunqueira@yahoo.com
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> The disk state should be the authoritative state of a server, so
>>if I
>> >> >> remember correctly, we load the database as a way of validating
>>the
>> >>disk
>> >> >> state. I don't claim that this is strictly necessary, but if we
>>are
>> >>to
>> >> >> change it, then I would need to think this through.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> About leader election, if a leader loses support from a quorum
of
>> >> >> followers,
>> >> >> then it will drop leadership. Any event that causes a follower
to
>> >>stop
>> >> >> receiving messages from the leader or the follower to disconnect
>>from
>> >> the
>> >> >> leader will make it stop supporting the current leader.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> -Flavio
>> >> >>
>> >> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> >> From: Sergey Maslyakov [mailto:evolvah@gmail.com]
>> >> >> Sent: 16 July 2013 16:16
>> >> >> To: user@zookeeper.apache.org
>> >> >> Subject: Re: Maximum size of a snapshot
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And another extension on top of Kishore's question: do the
>> >>reelections
>> >> >> happen if the previously elected leader remains in the cluster?
In
>> >>other
>> >> >> words, what events can trigger re-election and the corresponding
>> >> temporary
>> >> >> degradation of the service provided by Zookeeper?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thank you,
>> >> >> /Sergey
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 2:21 AM, kishore g <g.kishore@gmail.com>
>> >>wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> Regarding #2. Is that really true that during leader election
>>every
>> >> >>> machine reloads snapshot data from disk? Any reason why this
is
>> >>needed
>> >> >>> unless it really needs to truncate or undo conflicting
>>transactions
>> >> >> already applied?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Thawan Kooburat <thawan@fb.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>> Max snapshot size:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Here is my take on these issue,  others feel free to add
or
>> >>correct.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> 1. Depends on how much RAM your machine has.  Snapshot
is
>>should be
>> >> >>>> less than the available RAM since everything is loaded
into
>>memory.
>> >> >>>> 2. Depends on what is the availability guarantee that the
client
>> >> needs.
>> >> >>>> If there is leader election, every machine need to reload
the
>>data
>> >> >>>> from disk. So the quorum will be down for at least the
same as
>> >> >>>> snapshot
>> >> >>> loading
>> >> >>>> time. The session timeout on the client side should be
at least
>> >> >>>> longer than expected downtime during leader election.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> --
>> >> >>>> Thawan Kooburat
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> On 7/15/13 8:46 PM, "Sergey Maslyakov" <evolvah@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>> I have a couple of sizing questions to the users and
>>developers.
>> >> >>>>> Hope,
>> >> >>> you
>> >> >>>>> don't mind answering those.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> What is the guideline for the maximum reasonable size
of a
>> >>DataTree
>> >> >>> that a
>> >> >>>>> single ZK server can manage? If ZK server writes out
a
>>snapshot of
>> >> >>>>> about 1GB in size, is it pushed beyond the limits or
is it
>>still
>> >> >> manageable?
>> >> >>> If
>> >> >>>>> so, where is the critical threshold when ZK is really
being
>> >>abused?
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Similarly, how can I estimate the propagation delay
of a change
>> >> >>>>> across
>> >> >>> an
>> >> >>>>> ensemble of three ZK servers?
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Thank you,
>> >> >>>>> /Sergey
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>


Mime
View raw message