Mailing-List: contact zookeeper-user-help@hadoop.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: zookeeper-user@hadoop.apache.org
Message-ID: <4BF475F7.6010304@apache.org>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 16:36:23 -0700
From: Patrick Hunt <phunt@apache.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US;
 rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: zookeeper-user@hadoop.apache.org
CC: Flavio Junqueira <fpj@yahoo-inc.com>
Subject: Re: Concurrent reads and writes on BookKeeper
References: 
 <8e8b64e64c0f65e38b9ceb361d01c5d2.squirrel@webmail.students.ic.unicamp.br>
 <36ce35e86200075f15df5d852b3d718a.squirrel@webmail.students.ic.unicamp.br>
 <6B498E08-84A9-4332-9674-E1FD4C1C318E@yahoo-inc.com>
In-Reply-To: <6B498E08-84A9-4332-9674-E1FD4C1C318E@yahoo-inc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


On 05/19/2010 01:23 PM, Flavio Junqueira wrote:
> Hi Andre, To guarantee that two clients that read from a ledger will
> read the same sequence of entries, we need to make sure that there is
> agreement on the end of the sequence. A client is still able to read
> from an open ledger, though. We have an open jira about informing
> clients of the progress of an open ledger (ZOOKEEPER-462), but we
> haven't reached agreement on it yet. Some folks think that it is best
> that each application use the mechanism it finds best. One option is to
> have the writer writing periodically to a ZooKeeper znode to inform of
> its progress.

Hi Flavio. Seems like wrapping up a couple/few of these options in the 
client library (or "a" client library) would be useful for users -- 
reuse rather than everyone reinvent. Similar to how we now provide 
recipes in zk source base rather than everyone rewriting the basic 
locks/queues... Would be a great project I would think for someone 
interested in getting started with bk (and to some extent zk) development.

Patrick

>
> I would need to know more detail of your application before recommending
> you to stick with BookKeeper or switch to ZooKeeper. If your workload is
> dominated by writes, then BookKeeper might be a better option.
>
> -Flavio
>
> On May 19, 2010, at 1:29 AM, Andr� Oriani wrote:
>
>> Sorry, I forgot the subject on my last message :|
>>
>> Hi all,
>> I was considering BookKeeper to implement some server replicated
>> application having one primary server as writer and many backup servers
>> reading from BookKeeper concurrently. The last documentation a I had
>> access says "This writer has to execute a close ledger operation before
>> any other client can read from it." So readers cannot ready any entry on
>> the ledger, even the already committed ones until writer stops writing to
>> the ledger,i.e, closes it. Is my understanding right ? Should I then use
>> Zookeeper directly to achieve what I want ?
>>
>>
>> Thanks for the attention,
>> Andr� Oriani
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>