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

Switch to Threaded View
Zookeeper >> mail # user >> Dynamic reconfiguration

Copy link to this message
Re: Dynamic reconfiguration
So does just having the server started and pointing to the existing
ensemble automatically make it a "non participating follower"?  In other
words, there is no need to inform the existing nodes that this new node is
joining as a follower?  And to extend that, there could be any number of
followers that are simply listening in on the event stream?  I am assuming
that's the case, and that it is a follower (and not participant) by virtue
of not being in the official configuration stored in zookeeper itself.

On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Alexander Shraer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> there are just two supported types - participant and observer.
> (participant can act as either follower or leader).
> So you can either write participant or leave it unspecified (which means
> participant by default). Also, since the ip is the same for all your ports
> you don't have to write it twice.  All of these should work in the same way:
> server.5=;
> server.5=;2181 <>
> server.5=;
> server.5=;2181 <>
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Jared Cantwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>> Thanks Alex for the response.  Our current lines in the configuration
>> look like this:
>> server.5=;
>> For the new servers is it ok for their entry to have "participant"?  Or
>> should that be something different (e.g. "follower")?
>> ~Jared
>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Alexander Shraer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>>> Hi Jared,
>>> Thanks for experimenting with this feature.
>>> The idea is that new servers join as "non voting followers". Which means
>>> that they act as normal followers but the leader ignores their votes since
>>> they are not part of the current configuration. The leader only counts
>>> their votes during the reconfiguration itself (to make sure a quorum of the
>>> new config is ready before the new config can be committed/activated).
>>> Defining them as observers is not a good idea, for example in your scenario
>>> if they were observers they wouldn't be able to participate in the
>>> reconfiguration protocol (which is similar to the protocol for committing
>>> any other operation in which observers don't participate) and since we
>>> don't have a quorum of followers in the new config that can ack,
>>> reconfiguration would throw an exception (of
>>> KeeperException.NEWCONFIGNOQUORUM type).
>>> Of course if you intend them to be observers in the new config you can
>>> define them as observers since their votes are not needed during reconfig
>>> anyway.
>>> You're right, the new servers must be able to connect to the old quorum.
>>> At minimum, their file should contain the current leader, but
>>> you can also copy the current configuration file to the new members if
>>> you wish.
>>> In addition, you should add a line for the member itself, so that server
>>> F appears in F's config file (Its not important that the other new servers
>>> appear in F's file, but it won't hurt either, so you can do a union of old
>>> and new if you wish). The constructor of QuorumPeer checks that the server
>>> itself is in the configuration its started with, otherwise its not going to
>>> run. This check has always been there, but I'm thinking of possibly
>>> changing it in the future.
>>> As soon as F connects to the leader, its config file will be overwritten
>>> with the current config file as part of the synchronization process.
>>> Alex
>>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Jared Cantwell <
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> We are testing integration with 3.5.0 and dynamic membership and I have
>>>> a
>>>> question.  If I have a current set of servers in my ensemble {A,B,C,D,E}
>>>> and I want to reconfigure the ensemble to {D,E,F,G,H}, how should the