[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1366?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13194296#comment-13194296
]
Patrick Hunt commented on ZOOKEEPER-1366:
-----------------------------------------
Hi Ben:
bq. i don't like that idea.
why not? it would make it explicit and keep this from happening again. (one
would hope) Similar to Date, except in this case we're capturing the concept of
elapsed time. It seems like it might also make things more testable (the impl
could be mucked with, mocked, etc...).
> Zookeeper should be tolerant of clock adjustments
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: ZOOKEEPER-1366
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1366
> Project: ZooKeeper
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Ted Dunning
> Assignee: Ted Dunning
> Fix For: 3.4.3
>
> Attachments: ZOOKEEPER-1366-3.3.3.patch, ZOOKEEPER-1366.patch,
> ZOOKEEPER-1366.patch, ZOOKEEPER-1366.patch, ZOOKEEPER-1366.patch
>
>
> If you want to wreak havoc on a ZK based system just do [date -s "+1hour"]
> and watch the mayhem as all sessions expire at once.
> This shouldn't happen. Zookeeper could easily know handle elapsed times as
> elapsed times rather than as differences between absolute times. The
> absolute times are subject to adjustment when the clock is set while a timer
> is not subject to this problem. In Java, System.currentTimeMillis() gives
> you absolute time while System.nanoTime() gives you time based on a timer
> from an arbitrary epoch.
> I have done this and have been running tests now for some tens of minutes
> with no failures. I will set up a test machine to redo the build again on
> Ubuntu and post a patch here for discussion.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
