Yes. Sure. But Abishek's question is pretty basic so it deserved the basic answer.
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Alexander Shraer <[email protected]> wrote: > Ted, as previously discussed on this list, what you are saying is true > when the leader doesn't fail but it may not work in the general case > under some asynchrony conditions. Please see my email "sync semantics" > from Mar 1st or the thread "Ensure Leader hasn't changed" from > September 2012. In order to handle the general > case we should make the sync a quorum operation. > > Alex > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Because the leader is the one who leads all writes, it suffices to catch > up > > with that one node. There is no need to read from a quorum. Another way > > to look at this is that there is no way for a quorum read to succeed > > without there also existing a leader and one read to the leader is better > > than trying to read from the entire cluster. > > > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 6:37 AM, Abhishek .E.S <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> Zookeeper suggests using sync if the most up to date value is required > for > >> reading. > >> Would it be possible to use Quorum reads for ensuring up to date reads ? > >> > >> There is a function called isQuorum for indicating quorum requirement > for > >> operations. Read is listed as not requiring forum in this function > >> How would changing this to true impact the behavior ? > >> > >> Any pointers would be appreciated. > >> > >> -Abhishek > >> >
