Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Plain View
Zookeeper >> mail # user >> Getting confused with the "recipe for lock"


+
Zhao Boran 2013-01-11, 13:46
+
Andrey Stepachev 2013-01-11, 14:48
+
Hulunbier 2013-01-11, 16:10
+
Jordan Zimmerman 2013-01-11, 20:20
+
Hulunbier 2013-01-12, 10:30
+
Ben Bangert 2013-01-12, 17:39
+
Jordan Zimmerman 2013-01-13, 01:31
+
Hulunbier 2013-01-13, 15:05
+
Vitalii Tymchyshyn 2013-01-14, 10:37
+
Hulunbier 2013-01-14, 15:06
+
Vitalii Tymchyshyn 2013-01-14, 15:38
+
Ted Dunning 2013-01-14, 16:05
Copy link to this message
-
Re: Getting confused with the "recipe for lock"
Thanks Ted,

> And in general, you can't have precise distributed lock control.  There
> will always be a bit of slop.

Yes, I agree with you.

> So decide which penalty is easier to pay.  Do you want "at-most-one" or
> "at-least-one" or something in between?  You can't have "exactly-one" and
> still deal with expected problems like partition or node failure.

Yes again, I feel the same way.

IMHO, a lock(basic lock, not R/W lock) should be exclusive by nature.

*If* really there was such flaw in the recipe,  imho, they should not
claim "at any snapshot in time no two clients think they hold the same
lock" , at least with some notes; it is ... misleading.
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 12:05 AM, Ted Dunning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes.
>
> And in general, you can't have precise distributed lock control.  There
> will always be a bit of slop.
>
> So decide which penalty is easier to pay.  Do you want "at-most-one" or
> "at-least-one" or something in between?  You can't have "exactly-one" and
> still deal with expected problems like partition or node failure.
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 7:38 AM, Vitalii Tymchyshyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>> There are two events: disconnected and session expired. The ephemeral nodes
>> are removed after the second one. The client  receives both. So to
>> implement "at most one lock holder" scheme, client owning lock must think
>> it've lost lock ownership since it've received disconnected event. So,
>> there is period of time between disconnect and session expired when noone
>> should have the lock. It's "safety" time to accomodate for time shifts,
>> network latencies, lock ownership recheck interval (in case when client
>> can't stop using resource immediatelly and simply checks regulary if it
>> still holds the lock).
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/1/14 Hulunbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> > Hi Vitalii,
>> >
>> > > I don't see why clock must be in sync.
>> >
>> > I don't see any reason to precisely sync the clocks either (but if we
>> > could ... that would be wonderful.).
>> >
>> > By *some constrains of clock drift*, I mean :
>> >
>> > "Every node has a clock, and all clocks increase at the same rate"
>> > or
>> > "the server’s clock advance no faster than a known constant factor
>> > faster than the client’s.".
>> >
>> >
>> > >Also note the difference between disconnected and session
>> > > expired events. This time difference is when client knows "something's
>> > > wrong", but another client did not get a lock yet.
>> >
>> > sorry, but I failed to get your idea well; would you please give me
>> > some further explanation?
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 6:37 PM, Vitalii Tymchyshyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > wrote:
>> > > I don't see why clock must be in sync. They are counting time periods
>> > > (timeouts). Also note the difference between disconnected and session
>> > > expired events. This time difference is when client knows "something's
>> > > wrong", but another client did not get a lock yet. You will have
>> problems
>> > > if client can't react (and release resources) between this two events.
>> > >
>> > > Best regards, Vitalii Tymchyshyn
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > 2013/1/13 Hulunbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > >
>> > >> Thanks Jordan,
>> > >>
>> > >> > Assuming the clocks are in sync between all participants…
>> > >>
>> > >> imho, perfect clock synchronization in a distributed system is very
>> > >> hard (if it can be).
>> > >>
>> > >> > Someone with better understanding of ZK internals can correct me,
>> but
>> > >> this is my understanding.
>> > >>
>> > >> I think I might have missed some very important and subtile(or
>> > >> obvious?) points of the recipe / ZK protocol.
>> > >>
>> > >> I just can not believe that, there could be such type of a flaw in the
>> > >> lock-recipe,  for so long time,  without anybody has pointed it out.
>> > >>
>> > >> On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Jordan Zimmerman
>> > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >> > On Jan 12, 2013, at 2:30 AM, Hulunbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+
Hulunbier 2013-01-15, 01:52
+
Jordan Zimmerman 2013-01-15, 02:23
+
Hulunbier 2013-01-15, 03:45
+
Benjamin Reed 2013-01-15, 05:27
+
Hulunbier 2013-01-15, 06:32
+
Ted Dunning 2013-01-17, 11:43
+
Hulunbier 2013-01-18, 08:26
+
Benjamin Reed 2013-01-17, 04:28
+
Hulunbier 2013-01-17, 09:05
+
Vitalii Tymchyshyn 2013-01-27, 19:29
+
Hulunbier 2013-01-13, 14:40