zookeeper-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Simpler ZooKeeper event interface....
Date Wed, 07 Jan 2009 22:39:46 GMT
Vinod Johnson wrote:
> Mahadev Konar wrote:
>> Hi Vinod,
>>  I think what Ben meant was this--
>>
>> The client will never know of a session expiration until and unless its
>> connected to one of the servers. So the leader cannot demote itself since
>> its connected to one of the servers. It might have lost its session 
>> (which
>> all the others except itself would have realized) but will have to 
>> wait to
>> demote itself until it connects to one of the servers.
>>
>>   
> I guess then I don't follow the leader election recipe. Is the following 
> scenario possible in the leader election recipe:
> 1) Leader L is partitioned from the ensemble.
> 2) ZK servers expire its session.
> 3) Some other follower F now becomes a leader.
> 4) L and F form a split brain?
> 
> I had wrongly assumed that the session was like a lease in that it 
> allowed the client and server to independently know that the session had 
> expired by the use of the global clock. Wouldn't it make sense for the 
> client lib to expire its local session handle and never reuse it?

Here's a good reason for each client to know it's session status 
(connected/disconnected/expired). Depending on the application, if L 
does not have a connected session to the ensemble it may need to be 
careful how it acts.

I'm trying to think though some cases...

In the case of passive leader the followers will look at zk and only 
send requests to the leader, so this seems fine (L no longer gets 
requests, it syncs to the ensemble at some point and finds it's session 
expired, it recovers as appropriate)

In the case of an active leader, L continues to send commands (whatever) 
to the followers. However a new leader L' has since been elected and is 
also sending commands to the followers. In this case it seems like 
either a) L should not send commands if it's not sync'd to the ensemble 
(and holds the leader token) or b) followers should not accept commands 
from non-leader (only accept from the current leader). a) seems the 
right way to go; if L is disconnected it should stop sending commands to 
the followers, if it's resync'd in time it can start sending commands 
again, otw it's session will expire, a new leader L' elected and it will 
start sending commands to followers, eventually L will resync and notice 
that it is no longer the leader (and do whatever it takes to recover).

 > Wouldn't it make sense for the
 > client lib to expire its local session handle and never reuse it?

I would think that depends on how expensive it is to change leaders. It 
would be trivial for the client to close it's session and start a new 
one each time it's notified of a disconnect from the ensemble.

Patrick

>> mahadev
>>
>>
>> On 1/7/09 10:02 AM, "Vinod Johnson" <Thomas.Johnson@Sun.COM> wrote:
>>
>>  
>>> Benjamin Reed wrote:
>>>    
>>>> You don't demote yourself on disconnect. (Everyone else may still 
>>>> believe you
>>>> are the leader.) Check out the "Things to Remember about Watches" 
>>>> section in
>>>> the programmer's guide.
>>>>
>>>> When you are disconnected from ZK you don't know what is happening, 
>>>> so you
>>>> have to act conservatively. Your session may or may not have 
>>>> expired. You
>>>> will not know for sure until you reconnect to ZK.
>>>>         
>>> Just to make sure I'm not misunderstanding the last bit, even without
>>> reconnecting to ZK, the leader's session could expire at the client
>>> side, correct? In that case the conservative thing for the leader to do
>>> is to demote itself if the intent is to avoid split brain (even though
>>> the session may still be active at ZK for some period of time after 
>>> this).
>>>     
>>
>>   
> 

Mime
View raw message