No, to do this you need a tiebreaker node at a tertiary site. I wrote a
blog post on this a while back, you may find it useful:
On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 6:32 PM, Cameron McKenzie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> I'm prototyping a solution using ZooKeeper that relies on geographic
> redundancy. Specifically, we require two geographically redundant sites,
> but I'm not sure how this should be configured with ZooKeepers quorum
> requirements. The number of clients and amount of data being written and
> consumed will be quite small (in terms of what ZooKeeper can handle), so
> from capacity point of view we can get away with 3 ZK nodes.
> How should these be configured though to achieve geographical redundancy?
> We can't just have 2 ZK nodes at one site and 1 at the other, as this means
> that if the site with 2 nodes explodes then the other site cannot take
> The only way I can think of achieving this redundancy is by having 3 sites,
> each with a single ZK node. This is not ideal though as it means that we
> need another site purely for ZK.
> Am I missing something here?