Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-zookeeper-user-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-zookeeper-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F14033952 for ; Wed, 4 May 2011 16:38:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 4731 invoked by uid 500); 4 May 2011 16:38:12 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-zookeeper-user-archive@zookeeper.apache.org Received: (qmail 4708 invoked by uid 500); 4 May 2011 16:38:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact user-help@zookeeper.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: user@zookeeper.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list user@zookeeper.apache.org Received: (qmail 4700 invoked by uid 99); 4 May 2011 16:38:12 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 04 May 2011 16:38:12 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RFC_ABUSE_POST,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of ownaish@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.170 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.210.170] (HELO mail-iy0-f170.google.com) (209.85.210.170) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 04 May 2011 16:38:04 +0000 Received: by iyb12 with SMTP id 12so1324371iyb.15 for ; Wed, 04 May 2011 09:37:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=/GmW3W7N84xVXIKhI4cM6z0bv8U4Nw1O2ctNtZbtdPA=; b=jRg9/fUCAO7trbwgXpRfui6qxAZ+6t5rZlsRT+wj5j+5LIeva1rEN0L+xUXf9CCpVu jTYH+b7eDC0s3ZBL+0c3mVjyxXq0qBGtZ2yxHOV2xK4RhMCJ0Iz1ZNh67/S8Qfr0imjq Tzja3Hgqq2GjiQJ9Bxjjr6x71zw2+Dy8T+5QM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=kqnbnAHeJqh16H3LjT/hYkHsEUJxff4tevU4ayfJUVGQF85tu5xa31zWgsVTyj8zI3 Tv8hgE5FzzBXnTccWMblNZ5mlcDirgXFq2aVBMTzEKYq5EX9fJb5DzFte2y2j0+NCkw7 3Eh1REM8b6VK+ex2fGb2ARlTYH1VSgnkisz+U= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.208.16 with SMTP id ga16mr370189ibb.115.1304527063459; Wed, 04 May 2011 09:37:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.173.131 with HTTP; Wed, 4 May 2011 09:37:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 18:37:43 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Importance of latency in a global deployment From: Oliver Wulff To: user@zookeeper.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=90e6ba18199c37a8b204a275e010 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --90e6ba18199c37a8b204a275e010 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi there I'm quite new to the zookeeper project and got a question regarding robustness of the failover functionality in a global deployment. Are there any pre-conditions how close the zookeeper servers must be to each other from a geographical distance point of view? The reason is that the servers have to monitor and sync with each other in realtime and the latency might play an important role if for instance one server is in the US, one in Europe and one in China. Thanks Oli --90e6ba18199c37a8b204a275e010--