Hi all,
I recently worked on fixing flaky test -- testPortChange(), which is
related to ZOOKEEPER-2000.
This is what I have figured out:
* Server (1) and (2) were followers, (3) was the leader.
* client connected to (1), did a reconfig().
* (1) and (2) formed a quorum, reconfig was successful, a
+1 Thank you for looking into this Hongchao.
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Hongchao Deng wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I recently worked on fixing flaky test -- testPortChange(), which is
> related to ZOOKEEPER-2000.
>
> This is what I have figured out:
>
> * Server (1) and (2) were followers, (3) was t
For one thing, this should clean up the mess that we had to do in the code to
have sync() the way it is, since it was neither a regular nor a regular quorum
write. I don't know why you say that it changes the behavior. It changes the
internal behavior, but the expected behavior exposed through t
+1. This is how we believed sync was implemented already. Getting these
semantics correct would be very important for us.
On Mar 10, 2015 2:57 AM, "Flavio Junqueira"
wrote:
> For one thing, this should clean up the mess that we had to do in the code
> to have sync() the way it is, since it was ne
