Il sab 13 lug 2019, 21:28 Venkateswara Rao Jujjuri ha
scritto:
> Question: Any idea why we have a special check if we receive
> emptyreadOnlyBookies we need to ignore?
> It is possible that we can have no readonly bookies. Why not
> unconditionally take what came from onClusterChanged
> just
Question: Any idea why we have a special check if we receive
emptyreadOnlyBookies we need to ignore?
It is possible that we can have no readonly bookies. Why not
unconditionally take what came from onClusterChanged
just like writableBookies?
if (!readOnlyBookies.isEmpty()) {
Not yet; may be the scope/window is extremely tiny. For this to be a
problem, only one node has to become RO->Offline.
If more than one node becomes RO then we don't have this issue. Not sure if
anyone else looked at it yet.
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 9:03 AM Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> Does anyone
Does anyone have a chance to take a look?
Enrico
Il mer 12 giu 2019, 19:26 Venkateswara Rao Jujjuri ha
scritto:
> I am looking at onClusterChanged() in
> TopologyAwareEnsemblePlacementPolicy.java
> and I believe we don't handle the following case.
>
> 1. Bookie Became RO. We remove this from
I am looking at onClusterChanged() in
TopologyAwareEnsemblePlacementPolicy.java
and I believe we don't handle the following case.
1. Bookie Became RO. We remove this from known bookies and add it to
readOnlyBookies.
2. Same bookie went down; Now the arguments, writableBookies has no change,
and
