zookeeper-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>
Subject Re: how to lock one-of-many ?
Date Wed, 24 Feb 2010 20:11:10 GMT
Actually you can do it today, but not as easily. Look at the patch for 
544 - in your test you need to create your own subclass of ZooKeeper, 
then you can use the cnxn in a similar way as the patch does in order to 
access the data. Not particularly hard, but we've wrapped it up in a 
nice package for 3.3.0.

I wouldn't stress out too much about this particular issue though. If 
you implement a reasonable recipe ZooKeeper is doing the heavy 
lifting/theory and things should just work out in the end. I'd be 
interested to hear if you do find anything interesting though.

Regards,

Patrick

Mahadev Konar wrote:
> Hi martin,
>  Currently you cannot access the server that the client is connected to.
> This was fixed in this jira
> 
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-544
> 
> But again this does not tell you if you are connected to the primary or the
> other followers. So you will anyway have to do some manual testing with
> specifying the client host:port address as just the primary or just the
> follower (for the follower test case).
> 
> Leaking information like (if the server is primary or not) can cause
> applications to use this information in a wrong way. So we never exposed
> this information! :)
> 
> Thanks
> mahadev
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 2/24/10 11:25 AM, "Martin Waite" <waite.134@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> I take the point that the watch is useful for stopping clients unnecessarily
>> pestering the zk nodes.
>>
>> I think that this is something I will have to experiment with and see how it
>> goes.  I only need to place about 10k locks per minute, so I am hoping that
>> whatever approach I take is well within the headroom of Zookeeper on some
>> reasonable boxes.
>>
>> Is it possible for the client to know whether it has connected to the
>> current primary or not ?   During my testing I would like to make sure that
>> the approach works both when the client is attached to the primary and when
>> attached to a lagged non-primary node.
>>
>> regards,
>> Martin
>>
>> On 24 February 2010 18:42, Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Random back-off like this is unlikely to succeed (seems to me).  Better to
>>> use the watch on the locks directory to make the wait as long as possible
>>> AND as short as possible.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 8:53 AM, Patrick Hunt <phunt@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Anyone interested in locking an explicit resource attempts to create an
>>>> ephemeral node in /locks with the same ### as they resource they want
>>> access
>>>> to. If interested in just getting "any" resource then you would
>>>> getchildren(/resources) and getchildren(/locks) and attempt to lock
>>> anything
>>>> not in the intersection (avail). This could be done efficiently since
>>>> resources won't change much, just cache the results of getchildren and
>>> set a
>>>> watch at the same time. To lock a resource randomize "avail" and attempt
>>> to
>>>> lock each in turn. If all avail fail to acq the lock, then have some
>>> random
>>>> holdoff time, then re-getchildren(locks) and start over.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ted Dunning, CTO
>>> DeepDyve
>>>
> 

Mime
View raw message