[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-975?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13011639#comment-13011639
 ] 

Flavio Junqueira commented on ZOOKEEPER-975:
--------------------------------------------

The problem I see with mixing notifications from LOOKING peers and 
FOLLOWING/LEADING peers is the following. Peers that are either LEADING or 
FOLLOWING won't change their leader state based on new notifications. If a peer 
receives notifications from a quorum and one of the notifications says 
FOLLOWING/LEADING, then the peer cannot count on the sender of the notification 
to move to a new leader. The election will fail and the peer (perhaps along 
with others) will have to start over. 

Also, in the case a peer gets disconnected and comes back, if there is a quorum 
following a leader when the peer comes back, it needs to be able to determine 
who the leader is even if its leader election round is higher than the others. 
In this case, it has to follow a leader based on FOLLOWING/LEADING 
notifications, without comparing the votes in the notifications.  

For these reasons, we have kept FOLLOWING/LEADING notifications in a separate 
data structure. It is true, though, that we could keep all of them in the same 
structure and simply filter based on the state field when processing.

> new peer goes in LEADING state even if ensemble is online
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: ZOOKEEPER-975
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-975
>             Project: ZooKeeper
>          Issue Type: Bug
>    Affects Versions: 3.3.2
>            Reporter: Vishal K
>            Assignee: Vishal K
>             Fix For: 3.4.0
>
>         Attachments: ZOOKEEPER-975.patch, ZOOKEEPER-975.patch, 
> ZOOKEEPER-975.patch2
>
>
> Scenario:
> 1. 2 of the 3 ZK nodes are online
> 2. Third node is attempting to join
> 3. Third node unnecessarily goes in "LEADING" state
> 4. Then third goes back to LOOKING (no majority of followers) and finally 
> goes to FOLLOWING state.
> While going through the logs I noticed that a peer C that is trying to
> join an already formed cluster goes in LEADING state. This is because
> QuorumCnxManager of A and B sends the entire history of notification
> messages to C. C receives the notification messages that were
> exchanged between A and B when they were forming the cluster.
> In FastLeaderElection.lookForLeader(), due to the following piece of
> code, C quits lookForLeader assuming that it is supposed to lead.
> 740                             //If have received from all nodes, then 
> terminate
> 741                             if ((self.getVotingView().size() == 
> recvset.size()) &&
> 742                                     
> (self.getQuorumVerifier().getWeight(proposedLeader) != 0)){
> 743                                 self.setPeerState((proposedLeader == 
> self.getId()) ?
> 744                                         ServerState.LEADING: 
> learningState());
> 745                                 leaveInstance();
> 746                                 return new Vote(proposedLeader, 
> proposedZxid);
> 747
> 748                             } else if (termPredicate(recvset,
> This can cause:
> 1.  C to unnecessarily go in LEADING state and wait for tickTime * initLimit 
> and then restart the FLE.
> 2. C waits for 200 ms (finalizeWait) and then considers whatever
> notifications it has received to make a decision. C could potentially
> decide to follow an old leader, fail to connect to the leader, and
> then restart FLE. See code below.
> 752                             if (termPredicate(recvset,
> 753                                     new Vote(proposedLeader, proposedZxid,
> 754                                             logicalclock))) {
> 755 
> 756                                 // Verify if there is any change in the 
> proposed leader
> 757                                 while((n = recvqueue.poll(finalizeWait,
> 758                                         TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS)) != null){
> 759                                     if(totalOrderPredicate(n.leader, 
> n.zxid,
> 760                                             proposedLeader, 
> proposedZxid)){
> 761                                         recvqueue.put(n);
> 762                                         break;
> 763                                     }
> 764                                 }
> In general, this does not affect correctness of FLE since C will
> eventually go back to FOLLOWING state (A and B won't vote for
> C). However, this delays C from joining the cluster. This can in turn
> affect recovery time of an application.
> Proposal: A and B should send only the latest notification (most
> recent) instead of the entire history. Does this sound reasonable?

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

Reply via email to