[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-261?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15819633#comment-15819633
]
Hadoop QA commented on ZOOKEEPER-261:
-------------------------------------
+1 overall. GitHub Pull Request Build
+1 @author. The patch does not contain any @author tags.
+1 tests included. The patch appears to include 20 new or modified tests.
+1 javadoc. The javadoc tool did not generate any warning messages.
+1 javac. The applied patch does not increase the total number of javac
compiler warnings.
+1 findbugs. The patch does not introduce any new Findbugs (version 3.0.1)
warnings.
+1 release audit. The applied patch does not increase the total number of
release audit warnings.
+1 core tests. The patch passed core unit tests.
+1 contrib tests. The patch passed contrib unit tests.
Test results:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-ZOOKEEPER-github-pr-build/205//testReport/
Findbugs warnings:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-ZOOKEEPER-github-pr-build/205//artifact/trunk/build/test/findbugs/newPatchFindbugsWarnings.html
Console output:
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-ZOOKEEPER-github-pr-build/205//console
This message is automatically generated.
> Reinitialized servers should not participate in leader election
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: ZOOKEEPER-261
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-261
> Project: ZooKeeper
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: leaderElection, quorum
> Reporter: Benjamin Reed
>
> A server that has lost its data should not participate in leader election
> until it has resynced with a leader. Our leader election algorithm and
> NEW_LEADER commit assumes that the followers voting on a leader have not lost
> any of their data. We should have a flag in the data directory saying whether
> or not the data is preserved so that the the flag will be cleared if the data
> is ever cleared.
> Here is the problematic scenario: you have have ensemble of machines A, B,
> and C. C is down. the last transaction seen by C is z. a transaction, z+1, is
> committed on A and B. Now there is a power outage. B's data gets
> reinitialized. when power comes back up, B and C comes up, but A does not. C
> will be elected leader and transaction z+1 is lost. (note, this can happen
> even if all three machines are up and C just responds quickly. in that case C
> would tell A to truncate z+1 from its log.) in theory we haven't violated our
> 2f+1 guarantee, since A is failed and B still hasn't recovered from failure,
> but it would be nice if when we don't have quorum that system stops working
> rather than works incorrectly if we lose quorum.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
