zookeeper-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: counter with zookeeper
Date Thu, 02 Dec 2010 15:59:54 GMT
Shame on me for not reading more carefully and stating the obvious.

In my (slight) defense, the README talks about making sure that the the
counter is incremented by exactly 1.  I took that statement and ran with it.
 A slight elaboration there might have helped me realize that your
implementation was considerably more sophisticated.

On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 7:55 AM, David Rosenstrauch <darose@darose.net>wrote:

> On 12/02/2010 10:47 AM, Ted Dunning wrote:
>> I would recommend that you increment the counter by 100 or 1000 and then
>> increment a local counter over the implied range.  This will drive the
>> amortized ZK overhead down to tens of microseconds which should be good
>> for
>> almost any application. Your final ids will still be almost entirely
>> contiguous.  You could implement a fancier counter in ZK that remembers
>> returned chunks for re-use to get perfect contiguity if you really wanted
>> that.
> This is what our library does.  You request chunks of, say, 1000 ID's, and
> then push back any remaining unused ID's in the chunk you took.
> DR

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