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 4583217614 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 19:04:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 94236 invoked by uid 500); 21 Oct 2014 19:04:21 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-zookeeper-user-archive@zookeeper.apache.org Received: (qmail 94198 invoked by uid 500); 21 Oct 2014 19:04:20 -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 93901 invoked by uid 99); 21 Oct 2014 19:04:20 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 19:04:20 +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 samoilov@gmail.com designates 209.85.192.182 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.192.182] (HELO mail-pd0-f182.google.com) (209.85.192.182) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 19:03:52 +0000 Received: by mail-pd0-f182.google.com with SMTP id y10so1928293pdj.13 for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 12:03:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=iNzyM2029Xj+i9MAhBBxFeS+nj/OzPfEh0L9MCkYSZA=; b=OzxzWNfpMWtgSAVAQyHB0CceLV51PVsaovPHo/Nz+xFleXBzWnMPRwtgljOzJC6OeI /ALfk8ddhC0OBhcnKGXhCHhbnrDTcFoOF6VqjFE2xwQVtwc/4vYcCCFxgXRSDu7xo8RT YtRMjmtR0QZ/1fxMRL1MiDQd8cvTj4YntsupAk1UC9C6E0A+CvLLI7QQYS2YbaMhHQs4 4wwz1nouQNuWVMsj/2eTaqZmMTE4X8D5teZYYsJdEAJdBYvOGFhnSgwwRqRMTaF5KEU9 bEDp9iwNsRT8E95AkSS0aiWmMm+8NNMZMpDIPP4UZPvlc7gw4Y6EH2PpH8idKuywitgn Mr/g== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.69.15.164 with SMTP id fp4mr36548703pbd.37.1413918231072; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 12:03:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.109.205 with HTTP; Tue, 21 Oct 2014 12:03:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 12:03:50 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: cross DC setup - is it Ok for ZK? From: Denis Samoilov To: user@zookeeper.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b5d25dee796b30505f37dbf X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --047d7b5d25dee796b30505f37dbf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 hi, Could you please help to understand the following setup: we have two datacenters and want to setup ZK cluster so it will use servers (ZK servers not clients) in both: like 3 ZK servers in DC1 and 4 ZK servers in DC2. We sometime do maintenance in one or other DC. So ZK will completely lose replicas in one of the DC for several hours. E.g. if DC2 is under maintenance ZK will have only 3 out of 7 nodes and these 3 nodes supposed to receive writes. The questions: 1) is it Ok for ZK to have such setup? 2) will ZK catch up after losing 4 Servers and getting them back in some time? (this will be a majority actually :) ) 3) what is right number of nodes, is 5 sufficient : 2 + 3? Latency between DCs is pretty low (DCs are close to each other). Thank you for any advice. -Denis --047d7b5d25dee796b30505f37dbf--