Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-zookeeper-user-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-zookeeper-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0085311E3A for ; Mon, 19 May 2014 05:38:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 95873 invoked by uid 500); 19 May 2014 05:38:47 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-zookeeper-user-archive@zookeeper.apache.org Received: (qmail 95827 invoked by uid 500); 19 May 2014 05:38:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@zookeeper.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@zookeeper.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@zookeeper.apache.org Received: (qmail 95819 invoked by uid 99); 19 May 2014 05:38:47 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 19 May 2014 05:38:47 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of pramodbiligiri@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.179 as permitted sender) Received: from [74.125.82.179] (HELO mail-we0-f179.google.com) (74.125.82.179) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 19 May 2014 05:38:43 +0000 Received: by mail-we0-f179.google.com with SMTP id q59so4931247wes.38 for ; Sun, 18 May 2014 22:38:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=U9UkpBY/6J7R0HHYalyMBy7jz2aelvcSxOXc5dRc7dk=; b=NXarcn0eqh15nQX6a8OAwso60ABGGgQM6K3gzifck/ToKtsRRoQY6i0ivbe8j5Z93R PtH9qdDQpu3xpYz9o0lb6+/N4fX9I3OsayG0ykf5kIUV24w0ur3zND5tsKqrEQ2PLVLw JninwNB2RIeNCbN8aVIDTp/cSTJOklLotxY0HhGnAnb69TiF206LwPnNSARp17afh4U5 7i2RWyaM3YYX3L/SW3fAsjBADOuIf0nm10V7t8ETHMIjSacPf388YW4/2/h7agX1NRfN Yk09q1J3ulV3cYx0LLm9N55ybKQ6NFgcc7FrII2puNV1GsH7fVVkdvUq+ZeyayfDrNKm +HSA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.157.68 with SMTP id wk4mr27342622wjb.42.1400477900081; Sun, 18 May 2014 22:38:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.217.50.197 with HTTP; Sun, 18 May 2014 22:38:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 22:38:20 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Partitioned Zookeeper From: Pramod Biligiri To: user@zookeeper.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0112cbfcc00f8204f9ba2b21 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --089e0112cbfcc00f8204f9ba2b21 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi Ted, I see your point. You are right that it could be tricky. Do you see any other problems with the approach I'm taking. If we see any gains from it, we can look at the tricky issues next. Pramod On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 9:40 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: > On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 9:36 PM, Pramod Biligiri > wrote: > > > I guess you mean that you can't parallellize the workload because a multi > > command might require locking all the containers? Let me know if I'm > > missing something. > > > > Right. Getting that to work cleanly could be difficult > > The problem is that once a transaction is accepted by one partition, it can > be very difficult to unwind. That means that if part of a multi is on one > partition and another part is on another partition, you can't really do a > 2-phase commit sort of thing since you can't roll back the part that worked > when you find out about the part that didn't. > --089e0112cbfcc00f8204f9ba2b21--