Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

ZOOKEEPER-3373:need change description for "Single System Image" guarantee in document #931

Closed
wants to merge 4 commits into from

Conversation

@kabike
Copy link
Contributor

commented May 6, 2019

In website, "Single System Image" is "A client will see the same view of the service regardless of the server that it connects to."

I want to change it to "Once connected, a client will see the same view of the service even if it switchs to another server"

Because the old one is a little misleading, if cluster has a outdated follower and a normal follower, I do not think a client will see the same view of the service regardless of the server that it connects to at its first connection.

kabike added some commits May 6, 2019

@kabike

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented May 7, 2019

funny story, I just changed some MD documents, why checks faild?

@maoling

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented May 7, 2019

@kabike

  • the CI failure is not related.due to Installing oraclejdk11 , don't worry about this.
  • Yep,the description is a little misleading.IMO,What the "Single System Image" means is that a client cannot read the stale data that it had ever read regardless of the server that it connects to. e.g:
    set /key v1-->v2-->v3
    A client's view of the /key cannot be like: v1-->v3-->v2.
  • For the implement, when the client reconnect to another server, that server will refuse the connection when his current zxid is less than the client's lastZxid.
@kabike

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented May 8, 2019

@maoling yes, it is quite misleading. see https://stackoverflow.com/questions/40797443/how-zookeeper-guarantees-single-system-image. That is why I made this pull request

@anmolnar

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented May 29, 2019

@hanm @phunt Do you agree with this change?

@hanm

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented May 30, 2019

I agree the original statement is not very clear, but instead of changing it, how about actually clarify it with this:

A client will see the same view of the service regardless of the server that it connects to, and a client will never see an older view of the system even if the client fails over to a different server with the same session.

@kabike

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Jun 3, 2019

@hanm "A client will see the same view of the service regardless of the server that it connects to" sounds like "A client will see the same view of the service regardless of the server that it connects to at the first time", IMO

@maoling

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Jul 31, 2019

A client will see the same view of the service regardless of the server that it connects to. i.e., a client will never see an older view of the system even if the client fails over to a different server with the same session

Clarifying it is better than changing it, WDYT? @kabike Can we move on?

@kabike

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Aug 1, 2019

@maoling What should I do to move on?

@maoling

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Aug 1, 2019

@kabike
Keep the original statement still and add a clarification behind it, just like this:

A client will see the same view of the service regardless of the server that it connects to. i.e., a client will never see an older view of the system even if the client fails over to a different server with the same session

kabike added some commits Aug 2, 2019

@maoling

maoling approved these changes Aug 2, 2019

Copy link
Contributor

left a comment

@anmolnar
Copy link
Contributor

left a comment

+1 lgtm

@hanm

hanm approved these changes Aug 5, 2019

@asfgit asfgit closed this in f252c76 Aug 5, 2019

@kabike kabike deleted the kabike:ZOOKEEPER-3373 branch Aug 7, 2019

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
4 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.