Narasimha Tadepalli 2012-05-15, 17:29
Camille Fournier 2012-05-15, 18:20
Narasimha Tadepalli 2012-05-16, 19:46
Camille Fournier 2012-05-17, 18:21
Narasimha Tadepalli 2012-05-17, 20:28
Narasimha Tadepalli 2012-05-24, 19:55
You can put random sleeps in after you get a notification before you try to
grab the lock, or sleeps based on the active job count, to favor workers
with no or few jobs in flight. It seems to me that if you have limited the
jobs able to be processed on a worker by limiting your thread pool
appropriately, and if you still aren't hitting all 30 servers, maybe you
don't need 30 servers to be doing these jobs? Is that possible?
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Narasimha Tadepalli <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Camille
> I tried to control the job load at zookeeper clients by minimizing the
> number of jobs to process, but no luck in forcing the other idle workers to
> pick up the events. I am wondering if there is any way I can force the
> watcher to stop receiving events or force the zookeeper to connection time
> out without calling .close() method to let it retry to connect to the
> server which makes it rest of the client instances move to top priority
> while receiving the events. Appreciate your help again.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
> Camille Fournier
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 1:22 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Distribution Problems With Multiple Zookeeper Clients
> The below is written assuming that all clients are seeing all events, but
> then they race to get a lock of some sort to do the work, and the same 10
> are always getting the lock to do the work. If in fact not all of your
> clients are even getting all the events, that's another problem.
> So here's what I think happens, although other devs that know this code
> better may prove me wrong. When a client connects to a server and creates a
> watch for a particular path, that member of the ZK quorum adds the watch
> for that path to a WatchManager. The WatchManager underlying has a HashSet
> that contains the watches for that path. When an event happens on that
> path, the server will iteratate through the watchers on that path and send
> them the watch notification.
> It's quite possible that if your events are infrequent and/or your client
> servers aren't that loaded, what will happen is that the first few clients
> that registered that watch on each quorum member are likely to receive and
> process the watch first because their notifications were sent first, and
> will also always reset the watch for that path first if your code is
> written to reset the watch immediately upon receiving the notification.
> They always win the race, and thus always do all the work.
> In general, the indication is that you have more clients that you need
> available to do the work you want to do. If in fact you don't, perhaps the
> right thing to do is to investigate how you are handing off work and
> responding to watch notifications within your client. IE, if you have a
> client that is already doing some work and it gets a watch notification, it
> may not want to race for the lock. You may want to schedule trying to get
> the lock and then process more work in a limited thread pool, so that you
> know there's a limit of N tasks that can be being performed by each client
> and thus scope the max load on each server.
> Does this make sense?
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Narasimha Tadepalli <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi Camille
> > Sorry for the confusion. Yes it is watches. We have multiple clients
> > configured to watch on event change at server end. For example we have
> > a data directory of /data/345/text. All 30 clients keep watching for
> > event change under /data/345 directory if there is any change clients
> > need to process and read the child nodes. In this situation not all
> > clients not getting equal events. I am looking for a way to distribute
> > the load equally to all client instances. I hope I provided enough
> > clarification now or else let me know.
> > Thanks
Narasimha Tadepalli 2012-05-25, 16:41
Camille Fournier 2012-05-25, 16:48
Narasimha Tadepalli 2012-05-25, 17:30
Camille Fournier 2012-05-25, 17:58