Mailing-List: contact user-help@zookeeper.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@zookeeper.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of cf@renttherunway.com
 designates 209.85.215.46 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: cf@renttherunway.com
In-Reply-To: <BAY403-EAS414CC5EA19C1FA5F7B0CB24EE570@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY403-EAS414CC5EA19C1FA5F7B0CB24EE570@phx.gbl>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 07:49:39 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAKF1A=vT-TzPCqSCguSKSJ8DivQWuHckJWEvMfsEhcFjpH5c2A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Zookeeper performance
From: Camille Fournier <camille@apache.org>
To: "bookkeeper-user@zookeeper.apache.org" <user@zookeeper.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e011615e4151dc904e2cd52c3

--089e011615e4151dc904e2cd52c3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

This sounds highly error prone to me regardless of whether or not zookeeper
can handle the load-. Why not just use a standard transaction model with a
vector clock or other timing device to detect conflicts so you don't have
to worry about a second server to talk to (zookeeper) to do an update?
On Jul 31, 2013 7:17 AM, "Baskar Duraikannu" <baskar.duraikannu@outlook.com>
wrote:

> Hello
>
> We are looking to use zookeeper for optimistic concurrency. Basically when
> the user saves data on a screen, we need to lock,  read to ensure that no
> one else has changed the row while user is editing data, persist data and
> unlock znode.
>
> If the app/thread does not get a lock, we may set a watch so that polling
> is avoided.
>
> Our application is write intensive certain times of the day. We may get
> about 100k requests per second.  Can zookeeper handle this volume?

--089e011615e4151dc904e2cd52c3--