zookeeper-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexander Shraer <shra...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Re: Question about the two-phrase commit
Date Tue, 06 Jan 2015 15:17:50 GMT
Both scenarios are possible and are ok. An operation is guaranteed not to
be lost only if a quorum acked it. If less than a quorum acked it may be
lost or may remain as in your scenarios. Imagine, for example, that a
client connects to a server, submits an operation and right after the
server receives it from the client the server crashes. Or if the server
doesn't receive it at all and the client fails. The operation can be lost
in these cases too. Intuitively what's important is that its not lost after
it is committed or after someone saw it. And this can't happen with the
guarantee that it will not be lost if a quorum acks it.

Try reading "Paxos made simple" for a better intuition on this.
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/lamport/pubs/paxos-simple.pdf

Alex

On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 10:15 PM, bit1129@163.com <bit1129@163.com> wrote:

> Thanks Alex for the detailed explanation, I understand  much better.
>
> Following the your explanation, another question hits me. Say, that, only
> one follower A persist the write to the disk and acks the proposal to the
> leader,but others don't.
>
> The all the quorum are restarted. There are two things may happen
>
> 1. B,C,D starts first, assume D is the leader.
> Then A's last write will be lost because A will sync with D, I think this
> is OK because, the client of A didn't get the response that A's write is
> successful.
>
> 2. A,B,C starts first
> Assume A is the leader since it has more recent transaction id, then the
> whole quorum will have this write because B,C  will sync with A. At last,
> the whole quorum will have the write. Is this the expected behavior?
> I don't think so because 1 and 2 are conflicting. In 1, A's write is
> inaccessible,but in 2, A's write is accessible.
>
> Is there something that I miss? Thanks.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> bit1129@163.com
>
> From: Alexander Shraer
> Date: 2015-01-06 13:26
> To: user@zookeeper.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Question about the two-phrase commit
> Hi,
>
> A few things are not accurate. First, ZooKeeper implements consensus on
> each operation, not 2 phase commit.
> There are differences in the definition and guaratees of 2PC and Consensus.
>
> > 2. Followers ack the proposal and writes the change to the disk(but not
> persisted yet?)
>
> Before acking a follower writes/persists the proposed operation to disk (an
> operations log).
>
> > 4. When each follower receives the commit request, follower commits the
> changes(persist the change for ever?)
>
> The commit operaiton does not trigger a write to disk. What it does is that
> now the state change is applied to an in memory data structure holding
> ZooKeeper state. Since reads are served from that in-memory data structure,
> the write is now visible to reads.
>
> > d. Assume that When the response from A is  back to client telling the
> client that the write is successful, But in the period, the
> > other followers (B,C,D) haven't even received the commit request, and
> B,C,D are down without getting a chance to commit the
> > change.
>
> Whether an operation was "committed" or not is not important during
> recovery. What's important is that a quorum acked it. So when you restart
> B, C, D, one of them necessarily has this write in its log. The others may
> have it or not but in any case, who ever is elected leader will have this
> operation in the log. When a leader is established the log is applied to
> memory (there are also snapshots which allow truncating the log, so the
> snapshot is applied first and then the log). When A syncs with the new
> leader, the only thing that it can loose are operations that were not acked
> by a quorum previously, and hence was not committed.
>
> Alex
>
> On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 11:05 PM, bit1129@163.com <bit1129@163.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > In the above process, something rare could happen
> > a. Say,there are 5 nodes in the quorum(1 leader E, 4 follower A,B,C,D).
> > b. The write operation is issued by the client that connects to Follower
> A
> > c. A commits the changes and response to the client that the writer
> > succeeds.
> > d. Assume that When the response from A is  back to client telling the
> > client that the write is successful, But in the period, the other
> followers
>
>
> H
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message