-Re: Possible issue with cluster availability following new Leader Election - ZK 3.4
Mark Gius 2012-05-09, 17:17
I'm encountering a similar issue with a more or less empty dataset. I
bring up a cluster of 3 servers and shoot one of them in the head. It
takes ~20 seconds for the two remaining hosts to settle and begin
responding the requests again. If you're certain that your delay is due to
pushing down the larger dataset then we may be seeing different problems.
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 6:27 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Zookeeper devs and users,
> I've been doing some load and failover testing on the ZK 3.4 branch
> using moderately large data sets (700mb and 20k nodes) and I think there
> could be an issue.
> When I bring down the leader of a 3 node cluster, it takes around 20-30
> seconds for the cluster as a whole to become available again.
> This is because once a new leader is elected it pushes out a snapshot to
> all the peers who in turn persist it locally before sending an ack back.
> Only then does the leader decide he has a valid quorum. In this case
> pretty much all the time is taken up sending the data over the network
> and re-saving it.
> Granted I'm testing this on some low-spec VM's so I wouldn't expect a
> real-world sync for a data set that size to take anything like as long.
> However is this not a significant constraint on availability if,
> whenever a leader fails, a full snapshot needs to sent to and persisted
> by a quorum of peers before the cluster as a whole can be deemed as
> I notice when a peer joins a stable cluster as a follower,
> synchronization is implemented via diffs and the peer is quickly
> available for client connections provided it already had an up to date
> local state.
> Should not something similar not be possible when a new leader is
> elected. A quick glance at the code (line 390 of LearnerHandler)
> suggests there is some logic to send an empty diff but I never see this
> I'm am not mutating any state in the cluster whilst I am bringing stuff
> up and down so is this behaviour a bug or by design?
> I saw a related question
> 6868.html#a7089472) a few months back that touched on this, but there
> was not much follow up.
> Many thanks
> Visit our website at http://www.ubs.com
> This message contains confidential information and is intended only
> for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you
> should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please
> notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this
> e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system.
> E-mails are not encrypted and cannot be guaranteed to be secure or
> error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost,
> destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender
> therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the
> contents of this message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
> If verification is required please request a hard-copy version. This
> message is provided for informational purposes and should not be
> construed as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any securities
> or related financial instruments.
> UBS Limited is a company limited by shares incorporated in the United
> Kingdom registered in England and Wales with number 2035362.
> Registered office: 1 Finsbury Avenue, London EC2M 2PP. UBS Limited
> is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority.
> UBS AG is a public company incorporated with limited liability in
> Switzerland domiciled in the Canton of Basel-City and the Canton of
> Zurich respectively registered at the Commercial Registry offices in
> those Cantons with Identification No: CH-270.3.004.646-4 and having
> respective head offices at Aeschenvorstadt 1, 4051 Basel and
> Bahnhofstrasse 45, 8001 Zurich, Switzerland. Registered in the
> United Kingdom as a foreign company with No: FC021146 and having a