From user-return-8460-apmail-zookeeper-user-archive=zookeeper.apache.org@zookeeper.apache.org Tue Jan 6 20:42:18 2015 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 C4027177BB for ; Tue, 6 Jan 2015 20:42:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 9364 invoked by uid 500); 6 Jan 2015 20:42:19 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-zookeeper-user-archive@zookeeper.apache.org Received: (qmail 9321 invoked by uid 500); 6 Jan 2015 20:42:19 -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 9288 invoked by uid 500); 6 Jan 2015 20:42:17 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hadoop-zookeeper-user@hadoop.apache.org Received: (qmail 9285 invoked by uid 99); 6 Jan 2015 20:42:17 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 06 Jan 2015 20:42:17 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.3 required=5.0 tests=SPF_SOFTFAIL,URI_HEX X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: softfail (athena.apache.org: transitioning domain of i.s.el-sanosi@newcastle.ac.uk does not designate 162.253.133.43 as permitted sender) Received: from [162.253.133.43] (HELO mwork.nabble.com) (162.253.133.43) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 06 Jan 2015 20:42:11 +0000 Received: from mjim.nabble.com (unknown [162.253.133.84]) by mwork.nabble.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3937DFB252B for ; Tue, 6 Jan 2015 12:41:48 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2015 13:41:48 -0700 (MST) From: Ibrahim To: zookeeper-user@hadoop.apache.org Message-ID: <1420576908112-7580736.post@n2.nabble.com> In-Reply-To: <2015010515052731525120@163.com> References: <2015010515052731525120@163.com> Subject: Re: Question about the two-phrase commit MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Hi folks, This is really intersting post. It leads me to become more and more confitable about Zab implementation. I just want to make sure in bit1129 second scanario "2. A,B,C starts first Assume A is the leader since it has more recent transaction id, then the whole quorum will have this write because B,C will sync with A. At last, the whole quorum will have the write. In this scenario, we assume only one follower persist the operation and ack, meaning that the quorum has not reached because B and C didn't persist and ack. Here I am really wondering how Zab can has such transaction replicated in memory even the transaction has not got enough majority? Thank you Ibrahim -- View this message in context: http://zookeeper-user.578899.n2.nabble.com/Question-about-the-two-phrase-commit-tp7580725p7580736.html Sent from the zookeeper-user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.